archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 You guys just don't get it. There are 15 other guys that payed just as much, and because they didn't cheat or do something dishonest, they don't win? Naaaa, if I'm going to pay a few hundred to play a season. You need someone to keep some control in the whole thing. If you think one guy is more important then 95% of league. than your crazy. I've been in both leagues, and if I want to waste money each year, I might as well play the horses. Get over the whole he payed he gets to do anything he wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If someone wanted to trade Chris Johnson after week 1 for Fred Jackson would you have allowed it? You would not have, and you would have been WRONG. Bad example, 'cause that one would have been fine. Johnson coming off a holdout with limited practice time and Jackson having a really nice year in 2010. I'm thinking of even more lopsided. I mean really lopsided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Like the way you think. I agree, I'm not doing it for my own benefits and just looking after the league. No one wants lopsided trades. Not good for the league. Your such a fantasy football expert to determine what a lopsided trade is? You should become a GM for real football teams. I've been doing fantasy for MANY years and I have seen some lopsided traded (so it appeared) go completely against what I thought. If I was in your league and you told me you will veto my trade because you think it's lopsided, I would say, I dont give a furry f what you think is lopsided and I would demand my money back and probably kick your ass too. Like I said, the best you can do is ask for a reason for the trade if the guy says I have a feeling X player can turn it around and I want to gamble you accept. If he says, eh im out of it im just helping my brother, you veto. It is really that simple. What makes it worse is you have a team in this league no? So you biased wether you want to admit it or not. If you were commishing a league where you didn't have a team, you might have a stronger argument. This goes for Cunning Runt too. Who the hell are you to tell anyone who paid $ to run a franchise how to run it? You think you fantasy opinion is better than the owners? Like I said, if you or the league don't like the way he runs his team find a replacement next year, but you owe it to him this year to let him do what he wants. Most of the time I blame the comish for letting these people in the league in first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 You guys just don't get it. There are 15 other guys that payed just as much, and because they didn't cheat or do something dishonest, they don't win? Naaaa, if I'm going to pay a few hundred to play a season. You need someone to keep some control in the whole thing. If you think one guy is more important then 95% of league. than your crazy. I've been in both leagues, and if I want to waste money each year, I might as well play the horses. Get over the whole he payed he gets to do anything he wants. So YOUR opinion of the future value of players is all that matters ... YOU get to ensure fairness in the league based on YOUR perceived value of future performance? See my previous post ... will you also manage everybody's starting lineups to ensure fairness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'll answer that if you first answer how you go about proving collusion. That's where I think all these "there must be collusion" advocates lose their footing. In the absence of provable collusion, I disagree that every trade should be allowed. I think there are some that are just that bad - the future be damned. And we did not refund a penny. And get this.... everyone was back in the next year. Go figure. Again with this? Seriously? Fine if you play with people who make ridiculous trades, and you feel the need to do this... But I think the reason that you're not convincing many people, is most of us strive to be in leagues where people are treated like adults, and are smart enough to make their own decisions, damn what others think. Sometimes a trade can look lopsided at the surface, but helps both teams, do you not allow those either? It's just so arbitrary to look at two trades and say, "this one's ok, but that one isn't allowed"... Yes, if someone is trading a kicker for Calvin Johnson, but you seem to take a much more "no nonesense" view that is only likely to cause problems. What if I've identified a big sleeper you all think is worthless, and you overturn it because you don't see it? I'd be furious. Sorry, but no one wants someone telling them what they can and cannot do with their own team just because you rose to the prestigous role of league-bitch, err, I mean commish... Maybe you're somehow able to be completely fair about it, but I certainly wouldn't recommend awarding this power to the archiebonker commishes of the world (no offense) to overturn legitimate-looking trades like this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'd give your money back in a heart beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 You guys just don't get it. There are 15 other guys that payed just as much, and because they didn't cheat or do something dishonest, they don't win? Naaaa, if I'm going to pay a few hundred to play a season. You need someone to keep some control in the whole thing. If you think one guy is more important then 95% of league. than your crazy. I've been in both leagues, and if I want to waste money each year, I might as well play the horses. Get over the whole he payed he gets to do anything he wants. You haven't made a solid case in the least that anything dishonest is going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'd give your money back in a heart beat. ... and find another sheep next year that doesn't mind paying an entry fee and allowing you managing his team for him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 So YOUR opinion of the future value of players is all that matters ... YOU get to ensure fairness in the league based on YOUR perceived value of future performance? See my previous post ... will you also manage everybody's starting lineups to ensure fairness? 100% SPOT ON. Why stop on trades? Why don't you check everyones lineup and make sure they put in their top performers. Maybe he is benching someone you dont approve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If I was in your league and you told me you will veto my trade because you think it's lopsided, I would say, I dont give a furry f what you think is lopsided and I would demand my money back and probably kick your ass too. Not mine you wouldn't. I can guarantee you that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Bad example, 'cause that one would have been fine. Johnson coming off a holdout with limited practice time and Jackson having a really nice year in 2010. I'm thinking of even more lopsided. I mean really lopsided. OK, how about Chris Johnson for Demarco Murray? Johnson has likely won owners zero weeks, while Murray now has won owners one week for sure, and at this point, holds more upside going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't veto many trades. Maybe 3 times in the last 3 years. But I don't do it alone. I give it to 5 of the guys in our league when it's a bit fishy and let them vote on it and I get my vote. But you can have your opinion on what kind of commish I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 OK, how about Chris Johnson for Demarco Murray? Johnson has likely won owners zero weeks, while Murray now has won owners one week for sure, and at this point, holds more upside going forward. Would have been vetoed for sure after week 1. That's a joke right? Would not be vetoed today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't veto many trades. Maybe 3 times in the last 3 years. But I don't do it alone. I give it to 5 of the guys in our league when it's a bit fishy and let them vote on it and I get my vote. But you can have your opinion on what kind of commish I am. Makes no difference if the commissioner vetoes the trade or rounds up a posse of owners to veto the trade ... the league is still attempting to manage teams. Does the same committee of owners approve everybody's starting lineup each week to ensure that each owner has started the best lineup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't veto many trades. Maybe 3 times in the last 3 years. But I don't do it alone. I give it to 5 of the guys in our league when it's a bit fishy and let them vote on it and I get my vote. But you can have your opinion on what kind of commish I am. [/quote What's fishy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Did he just say he would kick my ass? Haaaaa. funny. Maybe go out on the rink and let you earn you money back. Always better on ice. Now that would be some extra entertainment in a FF league. haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Makes no difference if the commissioner vetoes the trade or rounds up a posse of owners to veto the trade ... the league is still attempting to manage teams. Does the same committee of owners approve everybody's starting lineup each week to ensure that each owner has started the best lineup? Might as well approve waiver picks too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 And if that stupid noob starts Alex Smith instead of Tom Brady or starts Laurent Robinson instead of Megatron ... are you going to manage his starting lineup for him too? In the spirit of fairness? I'd kick him out, it's not fair for the rest of the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm talking about a very lopsided deal.... we play pretty high stakes...and have had years where things were being done out side of the league for players. that came out later. Would have been good to have someone step in on those ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Did he just say he would kick my ass? Haaaaa. funny. Maybe go out on the rink and let you earn you money back. Always better on ice. Now that would be some extra entertainment in a FF league. haha. I was exaggerating about kicking ass. But I am not about vetoing. You can do as MUCH harm to the league with the amout of good you think you are doing. It's best to let 12 individual teams manage their teams. Next year, as comish, evaluate your GMs and replace the bad ones. Edited November 4, 2011 by MrTed46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Makes no difference if the commissioner vetoes the trade or rounds up a posse of owners to veto the trade ... the league is still attempting to manage teams. Does the same committee of owners approve everybody's starting lineup each week to ensure that each owner has started the best lineup? You have no idea how stupid that sounds to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Would have been vetoed for sure after week 1. That's a joke right? Would not be vetoed today. I guess I didn't read back far enough..thought you were looking for a trade that would have been a good example of why vetoing a trade based on current value, instead of potential future value, is idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archiebonker Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yup, sounds like a guy that has no problem screwing his own league if it means he win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Ar we actually having this discussion again? Let's just go out for a few beers and argue about Tebow instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 You have no idea how stupid that sounds to me. I guess you have no idea how stupid your argument sounds to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.