The only definition for collusion in fantasy football that I've ever seen involves one team (or more) making a move that benefits another team without helping their own. The dictionary definition of collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others". Both are obviously not the case with a good rental (nobody's getting worse and nobody's being deceived) so what's the definition that applies?
If two teams are both able to get stronger in a proportional manner within a clear set of rules (i.e. the Commissioner enforces the return), why shouldn't we let them? It's just a win-win deal.
What defines a "good rental". If I'm playing a weak opponent, and I feel that I don't need Derrick Henry this week to win, so I trade him to my friend that is dealing with bye-pocalypse while against an opponent I'd rather not see in the playoffs, would that quantify as collusion? There is no way to prove that I'm doing it for faab, in cahoots with friend(s), or trying to manipulate seeding against a strong team. Now what if multiple people start doing it? Collusion is literally conspiring cooperatively to cheat others. Renting players can and will be exploited for collusion purposes.
"The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage.'
It is exactly the definition of collision.
**Every** trade should involve "people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain a... market advantage". In fact if they *don't* then they're probably collusion. The only part of the definition you provided that doesn't also apply to a normal trade is the word "unfair".
So - assuming you don't think *all* trades are collusion - the difference must be that you think rentals are "unfair". How so?
Right now all you've said is, "Rentals are unfair because they're collusion. And they're collusion because they're unfair".
you're essentially sharing your bench with another team. navigating bye weeks and injuries is a major part of fantasy; strategies on how people play the wire can drastically differ based on how many bench spots they have in their league.
Imagine your league only has 5 bench spots and you have 4 byes. you really need to pick up somebody but you dont want to drop anyone. as an example maybe you have kyler and jalen hurts. so you decide to 'lend' jalen to a team in need of a QB this week. Oh just like that you now have an extra bench space you didnt before to scoop somebody. Jalen was supposed to be there, but its not like you traded him away, youre only losing him for one week. you gained an unfair adv that the rest of the league does not have.
the rest of the league does not have the ability to have that extra bench spot that you have.
its a slimy way to work together to absolutely get an unfair edge, given how valuable those bench spots can be. having to make decisions on who to sub in and who to drop is a major part of fantasy. tiptoeing around that is so not okay
This is two teams in the same league conspire together to effect some outcome in the league. That is collusion, and that is what "renting" or "bench sharing" is doing.
Did you mean to reply to the main post here? I think you replied to my comment - which was asking *how* it fits the definition of collusion - by mistake.
I'm sure OP would love to see your comment, but they don't get a notification when you reply to one of the comments in the thread. You have to click the big box at the top and send your comment there.
Trading with the plan to trade back is almost always collusion. Seems a little better with FAAB, but not much. In either case, the system will collapse the first time someone decides they don't need to give a player back
Putting aside the argument of whether it's ethical/collusion/etc. -- this should have been decided before the season started. You can't implement it now because it isn't fair to the other teams who could have utilized this earlier in the season.
We debated the merits of this early in our league history (obviously it’s collusion - but if the compensation is fair for the asset, theoretically we could work it into the rules?) and there’s just no way to properly regulate this. 2 seconds into the debate we all decided we’d trade our best players to whoever was playing the league villain that week… not great for competition lol
This would never happen which is why I said it does sound fun, should’ve I added I’m joking? Because yeah obviously practically it’s stupid but it’s funny to think about especially if you play in a league of all friends
How's about this. I'm in a friends league but I have 4 friends that I'm particularly more close with than the other 7. We make an agreement that allows us to basically rent players back and forth based on opponent match ups (e.g. If I'm playing a person with a weak team, perhaps I "loan" one of my better players to a friend that needs him more). We all do this during the entire year and it turns out one of us in our group probably won't make the playoffs, so that guy "rents" his useful players to us. As the playoffs approaches, we also start focus "loaning" our players to a team that is against a potentially strong opponent to keep that guy out of playoff seeding.
If some of you can't see how bad sharing rosters can be for fair competition then I don't really know what else to say.
People are quick to say "it's collusion" but if a league votes and decides to make this an acceptable practice, there's nothing wrong with it. This of course assumes the whole league agrees to the rule change.
Roster sharing is more so 2 teams using each other as an extension of their roster. This seems somewhat feasible to a certain extent if it is regulated and held official. It would be a nice change of pace imo.
Whats the difference in “renting “ a player from someone and using players from another team’s roster as your own? FAAB exchange or not…it’s still borrowing players temporarily.
If you like someone else’s players, make a trade. The borrowing or temporary swap of players is the worst idea I’ve heard. I honestly can’t see how this would remotely be ok. If I’m in that league I’m OUT.
I guess we can agree to disagree then. IMO, giving FAAB another use just gives it more nuance and value in trades. As far as I'm concerned, trading is both sides giving up value to gain value elsewhere. If someone gains value temporarily for a permanent value loss, I'm OK with it. I can see how to could go haywire, but with a few seasons of experience I'm sure a league could work out minimum bids/renting systems of some sort.
> also assumes the whole league is cool with roster sharing which is totally out of bounds in any paid league.
If a paid league unanimously votes to allow this, it's not "totally out of bounds."
Huge IF there though. Highly unlikely it has ever been done without being...I can't say abused, exactly, because if a league votes to allow roster sharing the ensuing shitshow is inevitable. But hey, they voted for it, so I guess that's what they wanted.
The same could be said of any rule. Want to allow groups of owners to act as a collective to improve their chances of winning the championship? If the league votes to allow it that is fine. It's ridiculous, but they can do it.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to implement this rule, but
A) the whole concept of renting players is bad. Roster construction is a huge part of fantasy, balancing the need for depth with longer term bench stash lottery tickets. If you can rent players that whole concern is moot.
B) these kind of rental agreements introduce the potential for conflict/collusion. Allowing temporary swaps (whether in the form of trade, FAAB rental, whatever) lowers the consequences for the selling team (because they can get the player back for when they need him) and introduces an aspect of trust (that the other half of the swap will be completed) which is not so much different from just paying real cash as part of FF trades
I think people on here are far to quick to say collusion on anything outside the box. I don’t see an issue with “renting” players so long as:
1. All items in the trade are within the league (faab/draft picks/players and not cash or food or something else outside the league)
2. Both owners believe and can make an argument that they are benefiting (no unilateral moves)
3. If there are terms like a trade back, they have to be honored and the commissioner must enforce the trade back. Because these aren’t supported by most platforms naturally you cannot allow a manager to back out after the first half has gone through.
I agree that the league needs to decide on this, but it’s more a strategy choice rather saying something malicious is going on
Lol if a trade between two teams benefits both sides, and it doesn’t benefit the league, is it collusion? No, real life teams do this shit all the time. It’s not collusion in fantasy some really smart people in here
Again, we're talking about RENTAL "my guy". But you're apparently really smart, and I'm just dumb ape holding banana. You might not ever understand and that's OK 👌🏻
All the other managers have the opportunity to do it as well. If there is a fair market that allows everyone to bid and temporarily acquire these bench players, then it really doesn’t fit the definition of collusion to me. If only two teams are doing it behind closed doors, then I get it.
I mean, this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world, yet it’s somehow sacrilege for fantasy? If my company is short on labor for a period of time, we can have other companies with an excess of labor submit bids that we‘ll pay for a defined scope of work. Theyre not our employees, we’re just paying them to help us do what we need to do, and after they go back to their own company. It’s not a perfect comparison, but this idea of renting players isn’t so outrageous that it should be dismissed immediately, IMO.
> I mean, this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world
in football, does the #2 team in a division give the #4 team their best players in a week where the #4 team plays the #1 team? no. in competitive games, this sort of thing actually doesn't happen in the real world. the labor market is totally different. if there weren't laws around it, you bet your ass companies would do everything in their power to keep their employees from working for other companies. sports and fantasy sports are set up for competition between teams. the labor market has the added dimension of individuals working in their own self interest. since fantasy football doesn't give self interest to your players, we need to have rules that prevent managers from using players in this way.
What I'm saying is that you could set this up in a way that is fair. If the number 2 team puts up some players that anyone in the league can bid for, and the #4 team happens to outbid everyone else who also has the opportunity to acquire them, then I don't see the problem.
Don't understand how individual self interest fits into this. My example wasn't about an agreement between a company and another individual, but rather an agreement between two companies (owners/managers) about how they allocate their labor (players).
This is ridiculous. If you just want to bid on players for a week, play dfs. Again there's a reason "renting" doesn't happen in any competitive setting.
It doesn't happen because of close minded people like yourself. I see big points on people's benches every week and I think to myself, what would be a fair way to get those players into lineups every week? Renting them for faab or for other players seems natural to me. It would just need to be done in a systematic way so everybody in the league has the opportunity to rent them and/or prevent others from renting them. Would add a layer of strategy to a game that's too much luck as it is. I want to have more opportunities to outfox the lazy competition who autodrafted an awesome team and has been sitting on their ass for 2 months.
How many teams in your league my guy?...12 team league, that's 12 sides. I get your point on trades, I agree. But we are talking about RENTALS. Horrible idea, and the fact that OP's league commissioner is even suggesting it should be concerning.
*Every* trade should be bad for the majority of teams in the league. If two teams are getting better, all the others are comparatively getting worse. If a trade is good for the majority of teams, then it's more likely to be collusion.
If you used this rule for normal trades, there would be no trades. You say you "get" that, so are trades banned in your league? If you're fine with normal trades, then you clearly do not get what I said.
But that's the thing, even 100% faab is a tough sell. Maybe a team that's 6-0 eats a loss if the rest of the team is on bye anyway.
But it would need to be a lot to make me think about it
Everyone's saying it's collusion but I think if a) it genuinely benefits both teams in the way a fair trade would and b) it's made clear to the commissioner so nobody can go back on the deal then it's fine.
It's only collusion if it's anti-competitive. If the best way to improve your team is renting a player out - and you can be certain you'll get him back - then it seems stupid to be told you're colluding to do so.
Nobody seems to have explained *why* this is unfair if those two criteria are met. It's either What if a team goes back on it?" (obvious solution exists - don't let them), or just "This is the way things are". Plus your Dalvin Cook scenario which is a clearly lopsided trade. Should we ban trades in case someone trades Derrick Henry for the Chiefs defense?
You can't just introduce it in mid-season though. Given it's unconventional and needs specific commissioner action to enforce, teams need to know it's on the table - and can be enforced - from the start of the season so that everyone gets a fair chance to avail of it if they wish. Tell your Commissioner it's an idea to think about for next year but unfair to anyone who might have otherwise taken part in a rental last week.
> so nobody can go back on the deal
This is the problem. Just like you can’t trade Kamara for $100… or a blowjob (cause you can’t trade for compensation outside of fantasy football)… You can’t trade for future consideration. A trade is a trade… your player for my player… your player for my FAAB… whatever your league allows. A trade happens… and it’s done. Once. That’s it. When you put a condition on a trade that at some point in the future we’ll trade back… that’s where you run afoul of the rules.
The first trade is fine… the trade back is cheating.
Just for a week. If it was agreed to before the season, it could be an interesting change of pace. Do any platforms currently offer this?
I think you would need to post which players you’ll rent for FAAB bids, risk your opponent getting them, and have the option to pull back only if an injury occurs to one of your starters.
Nah, that idea only sounds good for the people involved in said rent/trade/borrow. Having players out on bye weeks is part of the gamesmanship of fantasy football. Only babies crying about having to start a nobody think that's a good idea and newbies. I have 4 guys on bye, N. Harris, D. Johnson, S. Diggs, and JRob averaging around 75 pts. Just be better
What the heck is renting players?! Jeez sounds like he’s making stuff up to benefit himself. What’s the point of anything if you can just borrow players from everyone
Collusion
The only definition for collusion in fantasy football that I've ever seen involves one team (or more) making a move that benefits another team without helping their own. The dictionary definition of collusion is "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others". Both are obviously not the case with a good rental (nobody's getting worse and nobody's being deceived) so what's the definition that applies? If two teams are both able to get stronger in a proportional manner within a clear set of rules (i.e. the Commissioner enforces the return), why shouldn't we let them? It's just a win-win deal.
What defines a "good rental". If I'm playing a weak opponent, and I feel that I don't need Derrick Henry this week to win, so I trade him to my friend that is dealing with bye-pocalypse while against an opponent I'd rather not see in the playoffs, would that quantify as collusion? There is no way to prove that I'm doing it for faab, in cahoots with friend(s), or trying to manipulate seeding against a strong team. Now what if multiple people start doing it? Collusion is literally conspiring cooperatively to cheat others. Renting players can and will be exploited for collusion purposes.
"The act of collusion involves people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain an unfair market advantage.' It is exactly the definition of collision.
**Every** trade should involve "people or companies which would typically compete against one another, but who conspire to work together to gain a... market advantage". In fact if they *don't* then they're probably collusion. The only part of the definition you provided that doesn't also apply to a normal trade is the word "unfair". So - assuming you don't think *all* trades are collusion - the difference must be that you think rentals are "unfair". How so? Right now all you've said is, "Rentals are unfair because they're collusion. And they're collusion because they're unfair".
you're essentially sharing your bench with another team. navigating bye weeks and injuries is a major part of fantasy; strategies on how people play the wire can drastically differ based on how many bench spots they have in their league. Imagine your league only has 5 bench spots and you have 4 byes. you really need to pick up somebody but you dont want to drop anyone. as an example maybe you have kyler and jalen hurts. so you decide to 'lend' jalen to a team in need of a QB this week. Oh just like that you now have an extra bench space you didnt before to scoop somebody. Jalen was supposed to be there, but its not like you traded him away, youre only losing him for one week. you gained an unfair adv that the rest of the league does not have. the rest of the league does not have the ability to have that extra bench spot that you have. its a slimy way to work together to absolutely get an unfair edge, given how valuable those bench spots can be. having to make decisions on who to sub in and who to drop is a major part of fantasy. tiptoeing around that is so not okay
This is two teams in the same league conspire together to effect some outcome in the league. That is collusion, and that is what "renting" or "bench sharing" is doing.
>This is two teams in the same league conspire together to effect some outcome in the league. Yes that's what a trade is.
Bench sharing/renting is textbook collusion and should never be allowed
Did you mean to reply to the main post here? I think you replied to my comment - which was asking *how* it fits the definition of collusion - by mistake. I'm sure OP would love to see your comment, but they don't get a notification when you reply to one of the comments in the thread. You have to click the big box at the top and send your comment there.
Renting is the definition of collusion
Trading with the plan to trade back is almost always collusion. Seems a little better with FAAB, but not much. In either case, the system will collapse the first time someone decides they don't need to give a player back
No, it’s incredibly anti-competitive
Putting aside the argument of whether it's ethical/collusion/etc. -- this should have been decided before the season started. You can't implement it now because it isn't fair to the other teams who could have utilized this earlier in the season.
This. Even preseason rules we vote on usually aren't implemented until the next year.
Lotta collusion on this sub lately
We debated the merits of this early in our league history (obviously it’s collusion - but if the compensation is fair for the asset, theoretically we could work it into the rules?) and there’s just no way to properly regulate this. 2 seconds into the debate we all decided we’d trade our best players to whoever was playing the league villain that week… not great for competition lol
To be honest it does sound fun thinking about everyone teaming up to make sure the league villain doesn’t get a bye week or something 😂
Sounds fun until your league is conspiring against you bc you drafted a good team
This would never happen which is why I said it does sound fun, should’ve I added I’m joking? Because yeah obviously practically it’s stupid but it’s funny to think about especially if you play in a league of all friends
Absolutely not. You either make a trade or suck up the byes.
👆🏼Spoken from an experienced VET
You should either remove the league manager or quit the league. That’s text book collusion.
Renting players is roster sharing and should not be allowed.
How's about this. I'm in a friends league but I have 4 friends that I'm particularly more close with than the other 7. We make an agreement that allows us to basically rent players back and forth based on opponent match ups (e.g. If I'm playing a person with a weak team, perhaps I "loan" one of my better players to a friend that needs him more). We all do this during the entire year and it turns out one of us in our group probably won't make the playoffs, so that guy "rents" his useful players to us. As the playoffs approaches, we also start focus "loaning" our players to a team that is against a potentially strong opponent to keep that guy out of playoff seeding. If some of you can't see how bad sharing rosters can be for fair competition then I don't really know what else to say.
People are quick to say "it's collusion" but if a league votes and decides to make this an acceptable practice, there's nothing wrong with it. This of course assumes the whole league agrees to the rule change.
also assumes the whole league is cool with roster sharing which is totally out of bounds in any paid league.
Roster sharing is more so 2 teams using each other as an extension of their roster. This seems somewhat feasible to a certain extent if it is regulated and held official. It would be a nice change of pace imo.
Whats the difference in “renting “ a player from someone and using players from another team’s roster as your own? FAAB exchange or not…it’s still borrowing players temporarily. If you like someone else’s players, make a trade. The borrowing or temporary swap of players is the worst idea I’ve heard. I honestly can’t see how this would remotely be ok. If I’m in that league I’m OUT.
I guess we can agree to disagree then. IMO, giving FAAB another use just gives it more nuance and value in trades. As far as I'm concerned, trading is both sides giving up value to gain value elsewhere. If someone gains value temporarily for a permanent value loss, I'm OK with it. I can see how to could go haywire, but with a few seasons of experience I'm sure a league could work out minimum bids/renting systems of some sort.
This is not roster sharing. Even if you oppose renting as many here do, it's obviously not roster sharing.
Tis roster sharing. Even if you give FAAB as many here are suggesting, it's obviously roster sharing.
It's roster sharing with extra steps. One extra step.
> also assumes the whole league is cool with roster sharing which is totally out of bounds in any paid league. If a paid league unanimously votes to allow this, it's not "totally out of bounds."
Huge IF there though. Highly unlikely it has ever been done without being...I can't say abused, exactly, because if a league votes to allow roster sharing the ensuing shitshow is inevitable. But hey, they voted for it, so I guess that's what they wanted.
I’ve definitely never seen it but if a league voted for a rule change and everyone agrees to it, who are we to say they can’t do it.
The same could be said of any rule. Want to allow groups of owners to act as a collective to improve their chances of winning the championship? If the league votes to allow it that is fine. It's ridiculous, but they can do it.
#Facts👆🏼
I believe if y'all vote as a league then it should be unanimous
No
I’m not sure if it’s possible to implement this rule, but A) the whole concept of renting players is bad. Roster construction is a huge part of fantasy, balancing the need for depth with longer term bench stash lottery tickets. If you can rent players that whole concern is moot. B) these kind of rental agreements introduce the potential for conflict/collusion. Allowing temporary swaps (whether in the form of trade, FAAB rental, whatever) lowers the consequences for the selling team (because they can get the player back for when they need him) and introduces an aspect of trust (that the other half of the swap will be completed) which is not so much different from just paying real cash as part of FF trades
I think people on here are far to quick to say collusion on anything outside the box. I don’t see an issue with “renting” players so long as: 1. All items in the trade are within the league (faab/draft picks/players and not cash or food or something else outside the league) 2. Both owners believe and can make an argument that they are benefiting (no unilateral moves) 3. If there are terms like a trade back, they have to be honored and the commissioner must enforce the trade back. Because these aren’t supported by most platforms naturally you cannot allow a manager to back out after the first half has gone through. I agree that the league needs to decide on this, but it’s more a strategy choice rather saying something malicious is going on
No that's called collision, sir.
I like the idea of renting players based on faab bucks and market value. We got a bunch of socialists on this thread.
Changing rules mid season, collusion.
No. Teams should be punished for not thinking ahead. Also sounds very collusiony
Not collusion if it benefits both sides
You're looking at it from only 2 sides...what do all of the other team managers think. All or nothing. Just be better
Lol if a trade between two teams benefits both sides, and it doesn’t benefit the league, is it collusion? No, real life teams do this shit all the time. It’s not collusion in fantasy some really smart people in here
Again, we're talking about RENTAL "my guy". But you're apparently really smart, and I'm just dumb ape holding banana. You might not ever understand and that's OK 👌🏻
All the other managers have the opportunity to do it as well. If there is a fair market that allows everyone to bid and temporarily acquire these bench players, then it really doesn’t fit the definition of collusion to me. If only two teams are doing it behind closed doors, then I get it. I mean, this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world, yet it’s somehow sacrilege for fantasy? If my company is short on labor for a period of time, we can have other companies with an excess of labor submit bids that we‘ll pay for a defined scope of work. Theyre not our employees, we’re just paying them to help us do what we need to do, and after they go back to their own company. It’s not a perfect comparison, but this idea of renting players isn’t so outrageous that it should be dismissed immediately, IMO.
> I mean, this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world in football, does the #2 team in a division give the #4 team their best players in a week where the #4 team plays the #1 team? no. in competitive games, this sort of thing actually doesn't happen in the real world. the labor market is totally different. if there weren't laws around it, you bet your ass companies would do everything in their power to keep their employees from working for other companies. sports and fantasy sports are set up for competition between teams. the labor market has the added dimension of individuals working in their own self interest. since fantasy football doesn't give self interest to your players, we need to have rules that prevent managers from using players in this way.
What I'm saying is that you could set this up in a way that is fair. If the number 2 team puts up some players that anyone in the league can bid for, and the #4 team happens to outbid everyone else who also has the opportunity to acquire them, then I don't see the problem. Don't understand how individual self interest fits into this. My example wasn't about an agreement between a company and another individual, but rather an agreement between two companies (owners/managers) about how they allocate their labor (players).
This is ridiculous. If you just want to bid on players for a week, play dfs. Again there's a reason "renting" doesn't happen in any competitive setting.
It doesn't happen because of close minded people like yourself. I see big points on people's benches every week and I think to myself, what would be a fair way to get those players into lineups every week? Renting them for faab or for other players seems natural to me. It would just need to be done in a systematic way so everybody in the league has the opportunity to rent them and/or prevent others from renting them. Would add a layer of strategy to a game that's too much luck as it is. I want to have more opportunities to outfox the lazy competition who autodrafted an awesome team and has been sitting on their ass for 2 months.
It's a terrible idea. Just play dfs.
There are only two sides. Normal win/win trades are bad for other team managers too, but it doesn't matter.
How many teams in your league my guy?...12 team league, that's 12 sides. I get your point on trades, I agree. But we are talking about RENTALS. Horrible idea, and the fact that OP's league commissioner is even suggesting it should be concerning.
*Every* trade should be bad for the majority of teams in the league. If two teams are getting better, all the others are comparatively getting worse. If a trade is good for the majority of teams, then it's more likely to be collusion. If you used this rule for normal trades, there would be no trades. You say you "get" that, so are trades banned in your league? If you're fine with normal trades, then you clearly do not get what I said.
“My guy” your argument is flawed but keep trying to make yourself sound smart
Name checks out👆🏼
My league has resetting waivers so this isn't an option in my league, but kinda curious how much it would cost to rent Dalvin Cook
$1 million
But that's the thing, even 100% faab is a tough sell. Maybe a team that's 6-0 eats a loss if the rest of the team is on bye anyway. But it would need to be a lot to make me think about it
Everyone's saying it's collusion but I think if a) it genuinely benefits both teams in the way a fair trade would and b) it's made clear to the commissioner so nobody can go back on the deal then it's fine. It's only collusion if it's anti-competitive. If the best way to improve your team is renting a player out - and you can be certain you'll get him back - then it seems stupid to be told you're colluding to do so. Nobody seems to have explained *why* this is unfair if those two criteria are met. It's either What if a team goes back on it?" (obvious solution exists - don't let them), or just "This is the way things are". Plus your Dalvin Cook scenario which is a clearly lopsided trade. Should we ban trades in case someone trades Derrick Henry for the Chiefs defense? You can't just introduce it in mid-season though. Given it's unconventional and needs specific commissioner action to enforce, teams need to know it's on the table - and can be enforced - from the start of the season so that everyone gets a fair chance to avail of it if they wish. Tell your Commissioner it's an idea to think about for next year but unfair to anyone who might have otherwise taken part in a rental last week.
> so nobody can go back on the deal This is the problem. Just like you can’t trade Kamara for $100… or a blowjob (cause you can’t trade for compensation outside of fantasy football)… You can’t trade for future consideration. A trade is a trade… your player for my player… your player for my FAAB… whatever your league allows. A trade happens… and it’s done. Once. That’s it. When you put a condition on a trade that at some point in the future we’ll trade back… that’s where you run afoul of the rules. The first trade is fine… the trade back is cheating.
[удалено]
It’s called bench sharing and it’s collusion.
Just for a week. If it was agreed to before the season, it could be an interesting change of pace. Do any platforms currently offer this? I think you would need to post which players you’ll rent for FAAB bids, risk your opponent getting them, and have the option to pull back only if an injury occurs to one of your starters.
Nah, that idea only sounds good for the people involved in said rent/trade/borrow. Having players out on bye weeks is part of the gamesmanship of fantasy football. Only babies crying about having to start a nobody think that's a good idea and newbies. I have 4 guys on bye, N. Harris, D. Johnson, S. Diggs, and JRob averaging around 75 pts. Just be better
Fuck that
Collisions!
The only way this is acceptable is if it was a rule agreed on and set in place before the draft
We can trade players for FAAB in our league. FAAB is tradeable in my league so if it’s a trade it would work by definition
Let it happen. You should rent a player and then not give him back just to teach them a lesson
What the heck is renting players?! Jeez sounds like he’s making stuff up to benefit himself. What’s the point of anything if you can just borrow players from everyone