Is this cheating

[collegeguy]

Player A trades Kellen Winslow
Player B trades Jamal Lewis

week later
Player A is trading Jamal Lewis
Player B is trading Kellen Winslow

So in essence their trying to swap players for the week. They are saying theres no rule against I assumed it was common sense.

So is it cheating or common practice? I'm definetely for cheating.

[SLAMLLC]

It is only cheating if it is specifically against your rules. If your league rules were drawn up by anyone who had some sense that would have been addressed. Do I have a problem with it, most definately. Can anything be done about it? Unless you have a specific rule against this practice or your Commish powers are allowed to be used against collusion at your will, maybe not for this year. We have a rule that once you trade a player away you cannot regain him for the remainder of the year.

[Canton Cruisers]

I have to agree with SLAMLLC. This is a move I'm against, if it's coordinated between two teams to help eachother when convenient by trading back and forth, and it shouldn't be allowed but only if it's stated in your league rules, there's nothing you can do unless it's against a specific rule set forth at the beginning of the season.

[steelerfan513]

It's a form of collusion, which means that there doesn't have to be a specific rule against it. It's cheating. Do you think the NFL would allow this type of trading?

[Kareighuis]

I'm gonna go against the grain here. Depending on the circumstances (what week the trade was done, who the teams were playing), I don't think it's necessarily cheating.

One way I would consider this not cheating is if Team A needed a bye week filler at RB, or Team B needed a filler at TE. Given this, the other team may have decided to comply because the team they would trade with was playing a divisional foe. Once the game was done, the trade would be done again, sending the players back to their original team.

For the record, I think setting down in the rules that a player can't be reacquired once traded is ridiculous. One league I'm in specifies a player can't be traded for until 5 weeks pass since they were traded. That sounds much more reasonable.

[steelerfan513]

One way I would consider this not cheating is if Team A needed a bye week filler at RB, or Team B needed a filler at TE. Given this, the other team may have decided to comply because the team they would trade with was playing a divisional foe. Once the game was done, the trade would be done again, sending the players back to their original team.

So how would that not be cheating? If the Chargers wanted to trade Antonio Gates to a team that was playing KC or Denver during their bye week and then trade back afterwards, would the NFL allow it? It's a prearranged agreement that is meant to hamper fair play in the league.

[Battlecreek Dragon]

It's a prearranged agreement that is meant to hamper fair play in the league.

That's the essence of the one week trade right there.

In my league, I'd allow the first trade because I likely would not know of the other arrangement. But the second trade would almost certainly be vetoed.

Our league rules don't make such trades illegal per se, but the rules do list examples of types of trades that will be closely reviewed and most likely to be vetoed.

[dream_017]

I'm gonna go against the grain here. Depending on the circumstances (what week the trade was done, who the teams were playing), I don't think it's necessarily cheating.

One way I would consider this not cheating is if Team A needed a bye week filler at RB, or Team B needed a filler at TE. Given this, the other team may have decided to comply because the team they would trade with was playing a divisional foe. Once the game was done, the trade would be done again, sending the players back to their original team.

For the record, I think setting down in the rules that a player can't be reacquired once traded is ridiculous. One league I'm in specifies a player can't be traded for until 5 weeks pass since they were traded. That sounds much more reasonable.

It has been said before and I think it is said best:

another teams roster is not an extention of your bench.

Prearranged trade = Collusion
Collusion = Cheating
Cheating = being kicked out of my league

[joejlitz]

It is only cheating if it is specifically against your rules. If your league rules were drawn up by anyone who had some sense that would have been addressed. Do I have a problem with it, most definately. Can anything be done about it? Unless you have a specific rule against this practice or your Commish powers are allowed to be used against collusion at your will, maybe not for this year. We have a rule that once you trade a player away you cannot regain him for the remainder of the year.

I vehemently disagree. It is cheating. And whether there is a rule against it or not, there should be some kind of repurcussions. There can't be a rule against everything. That's why the MLB commissioner has immense power under the "best interests in baseball" clause. Basically, if the commish determines that an action is contrary to the best interests of the league, then he has a responsibility to the league to act. Your commish has a responsiblity to protect the integrity of the league in order to protect the interests of the rest of the owners.

[Shredd1]

Like all situations that may come up in a season, if anyone has a problem, state that problem to all the coaches, give them a date to vote yes or no (or whatever options fit) on the issue, then let the league decide and move on their mandate. That leaves out the "dictator" commissioner abusing his power issue. It also resolves the "making up rules as you go" issue. As a commissioner this leaves you completely neutral yet actively involved. JMHO