Commish needs your help on trade veto!

[Cunning Runt]

Weren't you the one who claimed to be capable of determining that trades by other owners were f-ing stupid - in short, to be capable of accurately predicting the outcome of future events? Let me check...

 

 

Yep, you sure did.

 

Don't misconstrue or make inferences to what I've said to suit your purposes. Bad form.

 

Me saying a stupid f'ing trade would get overturned is not "going there" to the extent you've got any business calling me personally "f'ing stupid".

 

Look - you don't like when you're arguing against someone who's better at it than you so you resort to name calling. I get it.

[i_am_the_swammi]

What I don't understand with regards to the line of thinking that says you should research your league very carefully before plunking down your cash and then just suck it up and bail next year if some shady business goes down is this.

 

First off, this isn't finding an insurance plan or a mortgage, it's joining a league to play a game. Are you supposed to run background checks on every player in the league your buddy invited you to join? What the hell.

 

I am from the camp you describe above.

 

My big-money local leagues are guys I have been with for many years and know very, very well. When the time has come to get a new owner (someone moves, someone opts out for wahtever reason), we absoultely ensure as best we can that the new owner knows fantasy football, and is a good friend of an existing leaguemate that can vouch for him. Do we run full background check? No. But we don't just post a message on a baord looking for a new owner. We filter the prospects pretty thoroughly, because we know there is real cash at stake. In our 18 years in this league, there has never been the need to veto a trade, nor to suspect collusion, so I think our processes work great. Have there been lopsided trades at the time they were made? Yep. But no one could (as BB has pointed out) ensure that those trades would end-up lopsided, so they had to stand. And we all realize this, so the league functions smoothly with this knowledge understood.

 

To your 2nd point, you state " its joining a league to play a game"....I couldn't disagree more. its a money league, so it more along the lines of "its joining a league to win some cash". So yes, I am going to be damn sure I am not throwing my money away to join a league that might have unethical owners or patheticly stupid owners. I am in a small-money 16-team BOTH league, where I know none of the other owners personally. Answered an ad on the message board a couple years ago, and thought it would be fun to try my luck against fellow Huddlers. Would I be shocked if two of the other owners knew each other, and worked together? Hardly. Do I hope it doesn't happen? Absolutely. Would I leave the next year if I felt this to be the case? For sure. If I lose my current-year entry fee because of this, who do I blame? Myself.

[MTSuper7]

To Swammi, Grits, BB, and anyone else who is using the "you can't predict the future" argument against vetoing trades... Let's be serious for a second. There is no rational justification for trading LT to get Ray Rice based on what we currently know, and a reasonable argument can't be made to suggest that their values are likely to change so dramatically that they will be equally valuable by season's end. None. However, that isn't cause to allow vetoes either or the underlying reason why a trade like that should normally be allowed. I'll explain...

 

I understand the train of thought regarding apparent lopsided trades, but under circumstances such as the LT for Ray Rice discussion earlier in the thread (which exceeds lopsided and flows into the realm of absurdity), this question might come up: What is so wrong with us looking at reasonable and rational thought when a trade is out there for approval?

 

The line of thinking is as follows: I think most people would agree that, given what we know to this point in the season, there is a reasonable expectation for how LT will perform going forward, and there is a reasonable expectation for how Ray Rice will perform going forward. Since reasonable expectations on these two would show that their value isn't anywhere in the same neighboorhood, what is wrong with a league having rules that allow trade vetoes in situations like these? It would prevent overt collusion, no?

 

But the underlying issue to all of this is simple. One of two things is going on if a trade like this is ever accepted by both teams:

 

1) Something fishy is going on (collusion) -OR-

2) The LT owner is a moron

 

We already agree that collusion is impossible to prove, so let's not even address that. The truth is that if all of the owners cry foul about a trade like this, they only have themselves to blame for not making an offer for LT that beat the Ray Rice offer. Now, if evidence is there to strongly suggest collusion (i.e. - the LT owner rejected my offer of Bryan Westbrook before accepting the Ray Rice offer), I'm curious if any of you could justify a veto in that scenario. I think I could, followed by freezing the "cheaters'" rosters and kicking them out of the league after the season. Or I could just quietly stew and "take the high road" (but still kick them out after this season).

 

Fascinating thread...

[Brentastic]

Don't misconstrue or make inferences to what I've said to suit your purposes. Bad form.

 

Me saying a stupid f'ing trade would get overturned is not "going there" to the extent you've got any business calling me personally "f'ing stupid".

 

Look - you don't like when you're arguing against someone who's better at it than you so you resort to name calling. I get it.

Stop now while you're ahead - I learned this (bolded above) about BB last month. I used to have respect for the guy but his tactics are poor form and uncalled for. It's a shame too because he has knowledge to share but he's guilty of what he is accusing you of (knowing more than others). It's either his way or you're weetodded. I just don't respond to the guy anymore and it works fantastic.

[i_am_the_swammi]

What is so wrong with us looking at reasonable and rational thought when a trade is out there for approval?

 

Because reasonable and rational thoughts are subjective.

 

If you veto a trade one day, due to it being "completely irrational", then do you also veto "somewhat irrational" trades? How about "marginally irrational" trades? how is the line drawn? who draws it? What if the person that draw that line is incorrect in their analysis?

 

It is a very slippery slope.

 

Now, if evidence is there to strongly suggest collusion (i.e. - the LT owner rejected my offer of Bryan Westbrook before accepting the Ray Rice offer), I'm curious if any of you could justify a veto in that scenario. I think I could, followed by freezing the "cheaters'" rosters and kicking them out of the league after the season. Or I could just quietly stew and "take the high road" (but still kick them out after this season).

 

Thats a very interesting thought, and one that fortunately hasn't reered its head in any league I have been in.

 

As much as it would pain me, I think I'd still have to take the high road. At some point, as collusionistic (?) as the trade may seem, it is impossible to prove without real evidence. As I have stated earlier, I take responsibility for where I wager my money. I don't blame DMD if his projections are off...I don't blame a buddy if he tells me to bet a team that loses. And I don't blame other owners if I put my money up in a league where I am not 99.9% sure there are no cheaters. My big-ching leagues are guys I trust. If others are willing put their money into leagues where they have to fret over possible collusion, its a risk they are taking that they have to live with.

[MTSuper7]

Because reasonable and rational thoughts are subjective.

 

If you veto a trade one day, due to it being "completely irrational", then do you also veto "somewhat irrational" trades? How about "marginally irrational" trades? how is the line drawn? who draws it? What if the person that draw that line is incorrect in their analysis?

 

It is a very slippery slope.

 

Agreed. I was just outlining the line of thought that people use to justify a veto. Though I slightly disagree that reasonable and rational thoughts are subjective (at least completely subjective). Each individual's thoughts are subjective, but if 999 out of 1000 people agree that the LT for Ray Rice trade is crap, opinions are SO slanted in that direction that the 1 out of 1000 can pretty safely be called unreasonable for thinking otherwise. In other words, the subjective becomes objective to some extent when numbers become overwhelmingly slanted to agree with one viewpoint. Since I don't have 1000 people in any of my fantasy leagues, I'll never see this level of agreement. And besides, it is a completely slippery slope as you've said.

[theprofessor]

No, I would never veto that trade. What possible excuse are your owners using for justifying saying that the deal isn't "fair"? Which side of the deal do they think is getting seriously screwed? And a deal not appearing "fair" is no legitimate reason to veto a trade - especially a deal like this.

 

Tell your other owners to mind their own freakin' teams and let these two owners who both see upside on their end of the trade (like I do, and it appears pretty obvious to be honest) on a trade that is pretty damn close run their teams as they see fit.

 

I'll be honest with you, if I were one of the trading owners in this deal and it got overturned, I'd be vetoing every other trade that was proposed for the remainder of this season by any team and then I'd wait until a couple of hours before next year's draft & quit. What a pile of BS.

 

As usual , BB is on the money here. +1

[Bronco Billy]

Stop now while you're ahead - I learned this (bolded above) about BB last month. I used to have respect for the guy but his tactics are poor form and uncalled for. It's a shame too because he has knowledge to share but he's guilty of what he is accusing you of (knowing more than others). It's either his way or you're weetodded. I just don't respond to the guy anymore and it works fantastic.

 

 

My, how superior we are.

 

How's Maroney doing?

[Bronco Billy]

Look - you don't like when you're arguing against someone who's better at it than you so you resort to name calling. I get it.

 

If that makes you feel better about yourself, feel free to masturbate philosophically all you want. Just clean up the mess when you're finished.

 

You're enforcing your opinion when you have no right to do so. You don't like a trade, why don't you just ask the owners to justify it? If they're colluding, fine. Veto the trade and then have the sack to kick them out of the league because you've just determined that they are cheating. If they can justify it, who in the hell are you that you think you have a superior opinion - and more importantly, and undeniably correct opinion that overules their judgment?

[Avernus]

This is the quote of the thread....

 

no trade can be evaluated as fair until the effects of the trade play out.

 

Thus, any trade should be allowed to stand, unless as some have stated, its a trade for an injured/IRd player. Even if the trade appears inbalanced when made (i.e LT-for-Rice), you won't know if its fair until the season is over.

 

Judging it as fair or slanted today is impossible.

 

did you see the pair of trades that went down?

[Avernus]

I guess if you believe you have infinite wisdom and the innate ability to predict the future performance of all players with 100% accuracy, then I see why you believe you should have the ability to run everybody else's teams to the optimum benefit of all.

 

so the pair of trades aren't completely and then when I wore my first dressced?.....I disagree....

[MTSuper7]

If they can justify it, who in the hell are you that you think you have a superior opinion - and more importantly, and undeniably correct opinion that overules their judgment?

 

First, isn't the term "correct opinion" an oxymoron?

 

Second, I agree with the premise here, but justification in their (the teams involved in the trade) eyes may not be justification in anyone else's. Too subjective to ask them to justify it. Like I said in my previous post, they're either cheating (impossible to prove nearly) or one of the owners is an idiot. Justifying a trade like LT for Ray Rice will only prove the LT owner is a tool and that everyone else in the league should have been smart enough to recognize this fact and offer something better than Ray Rice for LT.

[Grits and Shins]

To Swammi, Grits, BB, and anyone else who is using the "you can't predict the future" argument against vetoing trades... Let's be serious for a second. There is no rational justification for trading LT to get Ray Rice based on what we currently know, and a reasonable argument can't be made to suggest that their values are likely to change so dramatically that they will be equally valuable by season's end. None. However, that isn't cause to allow vetoes either or the underlying reason why a trade like that should normally be allowed. I'll explain...

 

I understand the train of thought regarding apparent lopsided trades, but under circumstances such as the LT for Ray Rice discussion earlier in the thread (which exceeds lopsided and flows into the realm of absurdity), this question might come up: What is so wrong with us looking at reasonable and rational thought when a trade is out there for approval?

 

The line of thinking is as follows: I think most people would agree that, given what we know to this point in the season, there is a reasonable expectation for how LT will perform going forward, and there is a reasonable expectation for how Ray Rice will perform going forward. Since reasonable expectations on these two would show that their value isn't anywhere in the same neighboorhood, what is wrong with a league having rules that allow trade vetoes in situations like these? It would prevent overt collusion, no?

 

But the underlying issue to all of this is simple. One of two things is going on if a trade like this is ever accepted by both teams:

 

1) Something fishy is going on (collusion) -OR-

2) The LT owner is a moron

 

We already agree that collusion is impossible to prove, so let's not even address that. The truth is that if all of the owners cry foul about a trade like this, they only have themselves to blame for not making an offer for LT that beat the Ray Rice offer. Now, if evidence is there to strongly suggest collusion (i.e. - the LT owner rejected my offer of Bryan Westbrook before accepting the Ray Rice offer), I'm curious if any of you could justify a veto in that scenario. I think I could, followed by freezing the "cheaters'" rosters and kicking them out of the league after the season. Or I could just quietly stew and "take the high road" (but still kick them out after this season).

 

Fascinating thread...

 

Here is where you are wrong. You believe a trade of LT for Ray Rice is absurd as to be laughable and that trade should be vetoed.

 

The waiver wire darling last week was Sproles. Why do you think that was? Because LT is suffering from an injury that can be very dehabilitating and can linger. I personally picked Sproles up in 2 leagues, cutting Maroney in one of them ... and I intend to keep Sproles.

 

Now lets talk about Rice. There were rumblings BEFORE the season that he would supplant McGahee for a variety of reasons that included McGahees health and attitude. Now McGahee hasn't done much of anything this season and one could very reasonably believe that soon Ray Rice will take over the job and will be worth having.

 

So if you are an owner that believes LT's performance will be down this year because of his injury ... and this is not too unreasonable you only have to go back a couple of years to see how LT did when he was struggling with an injury all year (hammy I believe). And you also believe that Ray Rice is set to go off ... then it would be a very savy move to make the trade you laugh at.

 

But some yahoo like you comes along and is blinded by the name LaDanian Tomlinson and you remember the monster years he had in the past ... and in your infinite wisdom you decide to veto the trade because, well ... it is LT after all.

 

What actually happens is irrelevant. The LT owner is opting to roll the dice and is risking that LT's injury won't be a factor ... if he chooses to take that risk who are YOU to decide he can't?

[MTSuper7]

Here is where you are wrong. You believe a trade of LT for Ray Rice is absurd as to be laughable and that trade should be vetoed.

 

The waiver wire darling last week was Sproles. Why do you think that was? Because LT is suffering from an injury that can be very dehabilitating and can linger. I personally picked Sproles up in 2 leagues, cutting Maroney in one of them ... and I intend to keep Sproles.

 

Now lets talk about Rice. There were rumblings BEFORE the season that he would supplant McGahee for a variety of reasons that included McGahees health and attitude. Now McGahee hasn't done much of anything this season and one could very reasonably believe that soon Ray Rice will take over the job and will be worth having.

 

So if you are an owner that believes LT's performance will be down this year because of his injury ... and this is not too unreasonable you only have to go back a couple of years to see how LT did when he was struggling with an injury all year (hammy I believe). And you also believe that Ray Rice is set to go off ... then it would be a very savy move to make the trade you laugh at.

 

But some yahoo like you comes along and is blinded by the name LaDanian Tomlinson and you remember the monster years he had in the past ... and in your infinite wisdom you decide to veto the trade because, well ... it is LT after all.

 

What actually happens is irrelevant. The LT owner is opting to roll the dice and is risking that LT's injury won't be a factor ... if he chooses to take that risk who are YOU to decide he can't?

 

I never said that I believe the trade to be vetoable, though I do think it is absurd and laughable. You missed my point, Grits. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think a veto makes sense. I was calling you, BB, etc. out because your reasoning (in my opinion) is wrong about why a veto shouldn't happen. Much of my early post was spent merely stating how those who think a veto makes sense think, not that I share that opinion. My intention was to say that future performance is irrelevant to the conversation about trade "fairness".

 

Despite that fact, you are missing the name Le'Ron McClain from your analysis on Baltimore's backfield. But like I said at the end of my post (if you even read that far - looks like you read the top third of my post or so and responded accordingly), anyone who feels like the trade should be vetoed or that it is unfair should simply be pissed at themselves for not offering something better than Ray Rice for LT. As for my opinion, sure I think LT for Ray Rice is absurd. Are you saying you would consider trading LT for Ray Rice based on all of the information about both that is currently available? That doesn't mean everyone feels that way, just an overwhelming majority.

 

So in recap - is the LT for Ray Rice trade laughable and absurd? At the moment, yes. (My opinion, I know, but I'll bet 99% of the FF world agrees with it). Is that grounds for a veto? no.

[Cunning Runt]

If that makes you feel better about yourself, feel free to masturbate philosophically all you want. Just clean up the mess when you're finished.

 

You're enforcing your opinion when you have no right to do so. You don't like a trade, why don't you just ask the owners to justify it? If they're colluding, fine. Veto the trade and then have the sack to kick them out of the league because you've just determined that they are cheating. If they can justify it, who in the hell are you that you think you have a superior opinion - and more importantly, and undeniably correct opinion that overules their judgment?

 

You're a dense mofo ain't ya? I said it before, I'll say it again - you're using "you" too much as if it's me making the call single-handedly. I'll type/talk slower this time............. as... commish... of... our... league... I... will... overturn... a trade... if it... is the... collective... will ... of the... league.

 

What part of that don't you get? And where on earth did I ever say I was gonna kick somebdy out of the league. I said that if the league decided that a trade should be overturned, it will be and if the owner(s) were so adamant about it, they were welcome to leave the league - before or after the season. Certainly not being punted. Their choice entirely.

 

Damn - I feel like I'm talking to my 4yr old.

[jetsfan]

Don't misconstrue or make inferences to what I've said to suit your purposes. Bad form.

 

Me saying a stupid f'ing thing like iced tea is better than sweet tea is akin to me saying churchs is better than bojangles.

 

[Cunning Runt]

 

One of the more insightful posts I've ever read.

[Brentastic]

 

My, how superior we are.

 

How's Maroney doing?

If I could be 100% perfect when predicting fantasy success I would be a millionaire. Yes, even Brentastic is human - hard to believe I know. That being said, the season is still young, although I no longer think he will be a top 10.

 

The bigger question is - how's Steven Jackson doing? Our feud started with you slinging the first stone by calling me stupid for claiming I would not draft him in the first round. I truly hope you have been humbled because I generally value your knowledge and input. My hunch though, is that you're just a blow-hard know-it-all who considers nobody's thoughts but your own - I hope I'm wrong.