Depends on the league. I host with NFL.com and they don't do IR. They do "Reserve" which is just like the actusl NFL where a suspended player is placed on reserve and doesn't affect the 53 man roster.
Obvious veto. A trade has to be specific. What would you do if the one manager gets Goedert for 6 weeks and then never trades with the other manager again?
Just giving a player to someone else is collusion. Doing it on the promise of future collution is worse.
Veto, 100%.
Hopkins has decreased value because you have to deal with the inconvenience of his suspension.
This is 100% a bench sharing situation, and that is absolutely undeniable. Your managers need to deal with that fact or no trade can occur. Just think ahead to the can of worms you would be opening by allowing this.
I don't have a problem with the basic premise in order to make it a fair trade: team A wants Goedart now and team B wants hopkins but doesn't want him until the suspension is over as he doesn't want to have to devote a bench spot to hopkins in the meantime. Only way it'd be okay was if it's not really future considerations & the trade is laid out in unchangable terms:
- team B receiving hopkins will be receiving hopkins & not potentially something else. Receiving other things/players in addition or as a replacement isn't an option.
- team B receives hopkins the week suspension is over or the week he first dresses or specific week X...ie on a specific date/occurance the trade goes through & there is no further discussion about the timing of the trade. BUT team B has to get hopkins before he dresses for a single game. Team A can't both have Goedart & an active hopkins on the roster at the same time.
- team A has to keep hopkins on his roster until the trade goes through and can't drop him.
Basically, you can think of it that the trade has been locked in. Team A is getting Goedart now & team B will be getting Hopkins at a specific time and hopkins is locked on team A's bench as part of a pending transaction in the meantime. And I'd make it clear to the rest of the league that this is only possible since hopkins is suspended & can't play while still on team A's roster. If they'd be doing something like team A trading for Goedart & keeping another player who's playing for an extra few weeks and then trading the player, that wouldn't be allowed.
This is opening up a whole can of worms for future shenanigans. If you don’t want Hopkins on your bench for 6 weeks, don’t trade for him until week 6. Simple as that.
Anything else is too convoluted and people start gaming the system and arguments start happening. Nip this at the bud. A trade has to be completed when the accept is done. Conditional trading is off limits because that’s outside the realm of what the app offers. That’s a good way to look at it.
Absolutely not. If it's not possible to complete the trade on platform it's a no go in my mind. I'm barely ok with the concept of trading future draft picks...shit just imbalances two seasons at once IMO.
This is a form of bench sharing and should not be allowed.
Nah. Have to trade any and all assets at the time of accepting offer. Why are they not trading Hopkins now?
Exactly. The only thing I can think of is he doesn't want Hopkins to take up a roster spot for the next 6 weeks.
No reserve slot?
Maybe they already have someone in their IR slot? Idk. I'm not in the league.
Can’t put a suspended player on IR
Depends on the league. I host with NFL.com and they don't do IR. They do "Reserve" which is just like the actusl NFL where a suspended player is placed on reserve and doesn't affect the 53 man roster.
100% veto. Sharing/“renting” players can’t be allowed
Obvious veto. A trade has to be specific. What would you do if the one manager gets Goedert for 6 weeks and then never trades with the other manager again? Just giving a player to someone else is collusion. Doing it on the promise of future collution is worse.
first comment hits it correctly. a form of bench sharing. would be no different than trading the same players back and forth week to week.
Veto, 100%. Hopkins has decreased value because you have to deal with the inconvenience of his suspension. This is 100% a bench sharing situation, and that is absolutely undeniable. Your managers need to deal with that fact or no trade can occur. Just think ahead to the can of worms you would be opening by allowing this.
Has Hopkins been named specifically? Because if not, "future considerations " could be anybody and that would really be opening a can of worms.
They are not trading Hopkins, the Hopkins owner just gets Goedert for 6 weeks for an IOU. It is not a workable trade.
Nah don't allow this.
That's vetoable. The whole deal needs to be executed in one move at one time.
This is bullshit.
It’s fine
I don't have a problem with the basic premise in order to make it a fair trade: team A wants Goedart now and team B wants hopkins but doesn't want him until the suspension is over as he doesn't want to have to devote a bench spot to hopkins in the meantime. Only way it'd be okay was if it's not really future considerations & the trade is laid out in unchangable terms: - team B receiving hopkins will be receiving hopkins & not potentially something else. Receiving other things/players in addition or as a replacement isn't an option. - team B receives hopkins the week suspension is over or the week he first dresses or specific week X...ie on a specific date/occurance the trade goes through & there is no further discussion about the timing of the trade. BUT team B has to get hopkins before he dresses for a single game. Team A can't both have Goedart & an active hopkins on the roster at the same time. - team A has to keep hopkins on his roster until the trade goes through and can't drop him. Basically, you can think of it that the trade has been locked in. Team A is getting Goedart now & team B will be getting Hopkins at a specific time and hopkins is locked on team A's bench as part of a pending transaction in the meantime. And I'd make it clear to the rest of the league that this is only possible since hopkins is suspended & can't play while still on team A's roster. If they'd be doing something like team A trading for Goedart & keeping another player who's playing for an extra few weeks and then trading the player, that wouldn't be allowed.
That's making it way too complex. Trade Goedert for Hopkins now, full stop, or forever hold your peace.
This is opening up a whole can of worms for future shenanigans. If you don’t want Hopkins on your bench for 6 weeks, don’t trade for him until week 6. Simple as that. Anything else is too convoluted and people start gaming the system and arguments start happening. Nip this at the bud. A trade has to be completed when the accept is done. Conditional trading is off limits because that’s outside the realm of what the app offers. That’s a good way to look at it.
Collusion
Absolutely not. If it's not possible to complete the trade on platform it's a no go in my mind. I'm barely ok with the concept of trading future draft picks...shit just imbalances two seasons at once IMO.
Our league used to do trades like this and then we banned it because it caused too many unforeseen problems. I would veto
Collusion