T O P

[Discussion] How do we feel about loans?

[Discussion] How do we feel about loans?

ParaNormalBeast

Loans are collusion


StarOfAthenry

Could you expand on your point of view?


danabrey

It's roster sharing, not trading, and thus it's collusion in my book.


StarOfAthenry

For what reasons should we consider this sharing?


danabrey

The fact that a player is being shared to another team temporarily to help them, and then moved back again.


skisbosco

that's like your opinion, dude. all public definitions of roster sharing that i've found are when 2 teams work together to make one team superior to the detriment of the other team. there's a different term for when two teams work to exchange players and picks to improve both teams


Thromkai

> that's like your opinion, dude. You made this thread to ask for opinions, dude.


fisherjoe

It's a go-to quip for people to cope with being unable to confront an argument.


skisbosco

no. its a Big Lebowski quote. i assumed all you folks were civilized enough to appreciate the BL.


fisherjoe

I know where it's from. It's overused and kinda cringe tho.


skisbosco

thats like your opinion dude.


danabrey

Well, have another public definition. Mine. If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. I commish multiple leagues and have done for many years, and this would definitely count as roster sharing if it was publicly said that there was an agreement that it's a temporary loan.


ScreamingButtholes

>That's like your opinion, dude. What the fuck were you expecting posting this then? lol


skisbosco

go watch Big Lebowski.


ScreamingButtholes

Well you got the quote wrong…


SonicGoesFastQuick

Stop colluding and just play fantasy football what the fuck.


Ntlindesq

League-breakingly bad idea


MajorAdvantage

No.


Alternative-Golf1868

Loans are BS, plain and simple. Not kosher at all


StarOfAthenry

Why are they BS “plain and simple?” It does not seem simple, at all.


Alternative-Golf1868

It’s roster sharing. It’s BS. Agreeing to trade back a player at another time for a different value is some shady shit, regardless if you tell nobody, the whole league, or your mother. No place for it in fantasy unless a league is setup around the idea (which is stupid to begin with)


Thromkai

Aside from the fact that it is collusion - good luck if that RB goes down for the year and then the guy doesn't want to trade back for a 2nd. What then? Are you going to hold them to that? There are so many variables and so many things that could go wrong with this that you're better off not even trying this, let alone because of collusion.


StarOfAthenry

Why is this collusion?


Thromkai

You're agreeing in advance to loan a player for a limited time with a promise to pay it back in another form.


VindicatedBury

Bro Seriously


grandbuffy

This is collusion and a terrible idea


NelleyGaming

Seriously? Lol


abah3765

If you look up collusion in the fantasy football dictionary, the situation you described would be definition two.


skisbosco

just posted the espn definition of collusion. its certainly not in there. whats the link to this ff dictionary you're referring to?


abah3765

"Player borrowing is also strictly prohibited. Any form of borrowing a player for any given period of time with the intent to later trade them back is prohibited. Any owners found in violation of any of these things are subject to be removed from the league." From a dynasty league's constitution. And another: "If you trade a player to another Owner, that other Owner may never trade that same player back to you within a year (365 days)."


StarOfAthenry

This is not borrowing. The situation as the OP has described it is a LOAN, which suggests fair compensation in return for the capital lent. If the OP were merely giving the player away to the other team then yes, I agree, that would be collusion. But that is not the circumstance at issue. Do you consider the relationship between a bank and a customer or a landlord and a tenant to be collusion? Of course not and neither is this situation that the OP describes.


skisbosco

so in those 2 very specific leagues, this is verboten. in a majority of leagues, and all i play in, this is not addressed in by laws.


ScreamingButtholes

Because for most leagues it's just an unspoken rule that doesn't need to be addressed. Almost all fantasy managers know that you don't make rental trades. I guarantee if you try a rental trade the league will flip out on you unless of course the league has already explicitly said that rental trades are allowed then go for it I guess.


PriceOfBrickGoingUp

Collusion and I'd kick out any leaguemates that pulled this crap without hesitation.


StarOfAthenry

Why do you feel this is collusion?


PriceOfBrickGoingUp

You clearly won't understand the explanation as common sense seems like it's too much for you to grasp.


StarOfAthenry

While that may be true, it would be kind of you to make an attempt.


PriceOfBrickGoingUp

I'm not doing your work. If you need some set of instructions on common sense to guide you, then maybe this is the wrong hobby for you.


StarOfAthenry

Surely if you are capable of sharing an opinion you are capable of sharing the explanation to support it. Seems a bit rude to accuse me of being too inept to comprehend an explanation if you are unwilling to provide it in the first place.


PriceOfBrickGoingUp

Common sense doesn't require an explanation. Now, go bother someone else with this bullshit.


Thromkai

> its common practice in most major soccer leagues. Your edit doesn't help. This isn't a major soccer league - it's not even the same sport.


squire1232

Would you be cool with a team you are competing with for a playoff spot doing a similar trade for 1 week to cover a bye or 2 or 3 weeks while a player is injured? Specifically if they were playing your team during that time frame?


skisbosco

clearly, yes.


ScreamingButtholes

I personally think it's stupid. Sure you can make a rule to allow it so it's not collusion but it's something that breaks a league imo. Everyone's teams would be filled with rental players that they don't actually "own" which defeats the entire point of dynasty. I just think it would be lame as fuck if a team wins the championship with a team full of 3 week rentals. The "giving" team in rental trades have nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing so. Also the soccer argument is kinda whack because football, the NFL, and fantasy football are so completely different from soccer.


KidsAreTinyDemons

No loans, want to make 2 trades? Make them. Loaning players is shit though and don't try to skirt around it


skisbosco

The situation is not a loan. My bad for using the term in my title. Its a trade and a agreement for a future trade. If you think this is not on the up and up, i'd be very interested in hearing why.


KidsAreTinyDemons

I would still consider that a loan. If an owner came with this idea, I would shut it down regardless of what soccer leagues do. If you want to make trades, make trades. But I don't care who you are, you can't predict the future of the NFL or fantasy and I believe it should be made based on info when the trade is sent, not weeks/months prior. If your league allows for trade offers to remain open for months, sure. Mine expire after 7 days though. If the other owner blindly wants to accept a trade in the future, sure. That's on them. Want to have some sort of agreement that would have to be upheld by me if one party fails to do their part? Hard pass.


skisbosco

thanks for a thoughtful response.


SeeDeez

I dont think its collusion if you're being upfront with the league about the deal. You could also try making the picks conditional, which is something my league does all the time. I rather like the idea of a loan with 1 team paying a premium like in soccer. I think when people hear "loan" they think a 1 for 1 trade that gets identically reversed after a week. But this is not that.


skisbosco

quick disclaimer, not making the trade. just enjoying thinking this through fully. but to those saying this is "collusion", ESPN disagrees. below are the definitions of collusion per ESPN (the first link i clicked on). this does not meet any of those criteria. Collusive transactions -Collusion occurs when one team makes moves to benefit another team, without trying to improve its own position. -One-sided trades are an example of collusive transactions. -Dropping a player so another team can pick up that player is another example of collusive transactions. Teams found in violation of this policy will be canceled and their team managers will be prohibited from participating in future ESPN Fantasy Games.


ShirtPants10

The only issue with using ESPN as an example is that they don't have dynasty leagues. So draft pick trading wouldnt be something teams could do.


skisbosco

good point. it was literally just the first link i clicked on when i typed in "roster sharing ff" in to google. i just looked through a few other sites discussion on collusion and don't see any discussion on loans. most of the language out there is primarily about lopsided deals.


PriceOfBrickGoingUp

ESPN are fucking hacks.


skisbosco

opinions aside, this was the first set of ff laws i clicked on. you know any other, more reputable sites, that clearly address this scenario?


PriceOfBrickGoingUp

You don't have to read a set of laws to figure out this is just wrong and collusion. You don't trade players with the premeditated intention of sending them back. Common sense.


StarOfAthenry

Loans are a viable part of any dynasty league. The Premier soccer league is an excellent example. The people here saying loans are collusion are misguided.


skisbosco

one person in support. that's all i needed to pull the trigger! jk. I believe there is more to this concept than those immediately dismissing it. And I think a league that explicitly allowed fair loans would be interesting as it adds one more element of strategy.


StarOfAthenry

Seems like most people in this sub have iron-clad points of view but lack the substance to expand on them or the imagination to consider alternative perspectives. If managers in our league proposed such a deal I would approve it. We have many managers who are avid fans of professional football (European) so it would not be a stretch to consider where they got such an idea. If you were merely proposing to allow a peer manager to borrow your player, then yes, it would arouse suspicions of collision. But what you have proposed instead is the exchange of player for draft capital, which seems fair and reasonable. I hope you are not dissuaded by the hot takes offered in response to your inquiry.


Thromkai

> Seems like most people in this sub have iron-clad points of view but lack the substance to expand on them or the imagination to consider alternative perspectives. See. I thought you were genuinely asking people why this is collusion, but all I see now is this comment to realize that you aren't asking in earnest. You already have a pre-conceived notion of what collusion is. > lack the substance to expand on them or the imagination to consider alternative perspectives. This is clearly meant to come off as a "I'm smarter than the rest of you" comment. > If managers in our league proposed such a deal I would approve it. Cool - that's YOUR league. That's not what everyone else goes by. Most of the people seem to be in agreement in this thread and you seem to be the odd one out and that's perfectly okay. You can do what you want in your leagues, but the rest of us over here, we can do without the collusion.


StarOfAthenry

It is kind of you to offer such a reply but, as of yet, no one has offered an argument as to why it is collusion. Might you be able to?


skisbosco

appreciated. not dissuaded. i like thinking through ideas and considering all sides. i know most like to see new ideas in black and white and move on.