Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) i vetoed a deal i felt unfair, Hence why the system did not work. Who exactly are you to make that determination? It's patently obvious that one owner was attempted to strengthen their team for future seasons by sacrificing the current season (and they may not have even done that if events occur that make the bevy of rook RBs impact players). Is planning for the future against your league rules? And how exactly did you come to the conclusion of the FF numbers that each of the traded players were going to score this year and in future years with certainty? In short, your speculating wildly and you feel that you know much more about FF than other owners in your league, and as such you see fit to make their FF decisions for them - or at the minimum to alter their decisions if they don't meet your criteria of FF acumen. That's incredibly arrogant & intolerable, IMNSHO. Why not just start your own league, make yourself the owner of all the teams, and manage all moves yourself as a supreme commish? Then you'll be happy and no one else will have to deal with you. Edited August 31, 2006 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 LOL at the posters who say to veto a trade that may "upset the competitive balance" of the league. You guys are momos....can you imagine Paul Tagliabue negating a trade because it upsets the competitive balance of the NFL? The idea of fantasy football is to make it as close to running an NFL franchise as possible. In the NFL, there are good teams, and bad teams. Good teams are often good becasue the ownership is good. Bad teams are bad for similar reasons. Same holds true in fantasy football. The good teams make good trades to benefit themselves. Bad tems make bad trades. Whats next? A commish vetoing a draft pick if he feels a better player will drop to a team with a solid roster? Get out of the way, and the let the strong thrive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Tough question. I was tempted a couple year's back. An owner traded Shaun Alexander for 1/2 of the two headed Carolina backfied (Stephen Davis). My big issue is that I do not want to see 10 other guys time ruined because one owner is a dipAthenae and makes another team a monster. The biggest way to stop this though is if you have a league with trades - to get the most skilled owners. But again, to have 10 owners get their asses kicked due to nothing that they did (or really nothing that the guy doing the ass kicking did - all he did was make an insulting trade offer that was accepted by an idiot) sucks. We let the trade go, but dang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I do not want to see 10 other guys time ruined because one owner is a dipAthenae and makes another team a monster. The biggest way to stop this though is if you have a league with trades - to get the most skilled owners. But again, to have 10 owners get their asses kicked due to nothing that they did (or really nothing that the guy doing the ass kicking did - all he did was make an insulting trade offer that was accepted by an idiot) sucks. We let the trade go, but dang. Look at it another way....perhaps the ten other owners got their asses handed to them because not one of them was smart/savvy/quick enough to offer a deal to the SA owner first! Kudos to the owner that took the time to send the offer....he was rewarded mightily. And in general, YES, if you want a balanced league, make sure there are no dopes owning teams....if you have unfair trades being made, its probably becasue you invited some schmuck to be apart of YOUR league...who's fault is that?? Edited August 31, 2006 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 LOL at the posters who say to veto a trade that may "upset the competitive balance" of the league. You guys are momos....can you imagine Paul Tagliabue negating a trade because it upsets the competitive balance of the NFL? The idea of fantasy football is to make it as close to running an NFL franchise as possible. In the NFL, there are good teams, and bad teams. Good teams are often good becasue the ownership is good. Bad teams are bad for similar reasons. Same holds true in fantasy football. The good teams make good trades to benefit themselves. Bad tems make bad trades. Whats next? A commish vetoing a draft pick if he feels a better player will drop to a team with a solid roster? Get out of the way, and the let the strong thrive. That would be me and I can assure you, a momo I'm not. The idea of fantasy football is NOT to make it as close to NFL as possible - hence the word "fantasy" ya momo. In the NFL, everyone is quite knowledgeable and it's their profession, ya momo. "Fantasy" football is played by a bunch of guys, some of whom don't follow things as closely as others, ya momo. So yeah ya momo, as commish in my league, I do act in a manner that doesn't allow stupid-a$$ trades. As do the other participants in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hence why the system did not work. Who exactly are you to make that determination? I am the COMMISH I see your fine with me usning my judgement to accept marginal true, but OH NO, if i use that same judgement, you know the one i use when i accept them, to send to league vote, then Give me a break with your moral BS, your a f'ing hypocrit to suggest it's okay to use judgment, but only if that judgement agrees with your Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 That would be me and I can assure you, a momo I'm not. The idea of fantasy football is NOT to make it as close to NFL as possible - hence the word "fantasy" ya momo. In the NFL, everyone is quite knowledgeable and it's their profession, ya momo. "Fantasy" football is played by a bunch of guys, some of whom don't follow things as closely as others, ya momo. So yeah ya momo, as commish in my league, I do act in a manner that doesn't allow stupid-a$$ trades. As do the other participants in the league. Hmmm, and i thought i was the only dictator in this sport or at least some of these hypocrits that would veto many trades if given a vote, would have you believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Isn't the whole point of fantasy football to build a team you consider to be better than all the others and in turn to dominate your league mates? I guess it's "not fair" when it's not YOU coming out on top in a trade. A couple of months ago in one of my leagues the following trade went down: SAlexander + MMorris for BVolek + KRobinson There was much grumbling in the league about this trade but it was allowed. Here are factors to consider: 1) Dynasty league 2) Salary cap 3) SAlexander was in the last year of his contract and could not be resigned by the original owner (he didn't have the cap room). So he either cuts Alexander and gets nothing for him or he deals him away for nothing. 4) KRob was cheap and at that time had a good bit of upside 5) Volek was a roll of the dice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) A couple of months ago in one of my leagues the following trade went down: SAlexander + MMorris for BVolek + KRobinson I think we both can agree, that we'd like NOT to play in a league with each other. That trade is a f'ing joke and any other view is rediculous, there is no reasonable explanation for evauating that deal as even close to fair. Edited August 31, 2006 by theeohiostate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) I think we both can agree, that we'd like NOT to play in a league with each other. That trade is a f'ing joke and any other view is rediculous. Yes I won't be in a league with you because you feel like YOUR FF knowledge is paramount and should override everybody else's. I'm not sure how you can possibly determine for a certainty how players will perform in the future, God will never tell me ... maybe you are on better terms with him than I am. The owner that traded SAlexander away got two players he perceived had value that he otherwise would not have gotten for a player he was going to have to cut anyway. What is "not fair" about that? I guess it's "not fair" because YOU weren't the owner to get SAlexander? Edited August 31, 2006 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 That would be me and I can assure you, a momo I'm not. The idea of fantasy football is NOT to make it as close to NFL as possible - hence the word "fantasy" ya momo. In the NFL, everyone is quite knowledgeable and it's their profession, ya momo. "Fantasy" football is played by a bunch of guys, some of whom don't follow things as closely as others, ya momo. So yeah ya momo, as commish in my league, I do act in a manner that doesn't allow stupid-a$$ trades. As do the other participants in the league. LOL...then how do you determine if a trade goes thru? Does it have to be exactly even? What if one team has a slight edge? A big edge? A hugh edge? Who determines the size of the edge? Who determines how much better or worse a team gets? Your league sounds very subjective, and that leaves room for bias, which has no place in any league. Have a nice time trying to figure out if every trade is exactly even....sounds like you enjoy getting your panties in a bunch if a deal comes up that is slightly off-balance...god forbid if a good team pulls off a good trade to make themsleves better at the expense of another dumbass owner. If you have lop-sided trades in your league, it is your own fault for allowing dopey coaches to participate who would accept an unfair deal. Thank god I am not in any league you commish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Yes I won't be in a league with you because you feel like YOUR FF knowledge is paramount and should override everybody else's. I'm not sure how you can possibly determine for a certainty how players will perform in the future, God will never tell me ... maybe you are on better terms with him than I am. Not going to rehash an old arguement again Grits, if you desire to play in leagues where the goal is "anything goes" then fine. I prefer a little more interaction with the league and like the idea of league votes if a trade is vetoed by the commish. Many are suggesting that votes are only to be vetoed if collusion is found, and i laugh at that idea. Give me a f'ing break, are we to set up a sting operation to prove it? Or is the commish to use his judgement, yes there's that word you hate so much for anyone to interject, but there it is, judgement to decide if it collusion, and in doing so, that is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I am the COMMISH I see your fine with me usning my judgement to accept marginal true, but OH NO, if i use that same judgement, you know the one i use when i accept them, to send to league vote, then Give me a break with your moral BS, your a f'ing hypocrit to suggest it's okay to use judgment, but only if that judgement agrees with your I see that we have ventured a great distance from the shores of reason. What the Hell are you talking about? My position is that you as commish have no position in negating trades or accepting trades, or anything else to do with other owners' trades with the exceptions of collusion or incredulous stupidity. In fact, based upoon your comments, you don't have any basis in the latter of the 2 exceptions, either. BTW - you're illiterate when you're angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Isn't the whole point of fantasy football to build a team you consider to be better than all the others and in turn to dominate your league mates? I guess it's "not fair" when it's not YOU coming out on top in a trade. If this is directed my way, you're conveniently missing the point where I said that if a bunch of owners emailed me and questioned a trade, it'd be looked at and discussed with the owners involved and then overturned. Not unilaterally just by me. For my part, I don't make trades that are scrutinized because I know the uproar doing so would cause and would expect to be reversed. Going back to an email a little bit ago where someone said something about fantasy football is supposed to be as close to the NFL as possible. I still disagree with that, but consider this: I listen to Sirius NFL Network whenever I'm in the car and there's a show mid-afternoon with one of the hosts named Pat Kirwin who used to be an NFL personnel director - I think maybe with the Jets. He talks all the time about trades and how the "points" need to match up in order for the trade to make sense for both sides. The matching up of these points is not required of course, but at the end of the day, in the NFL trades don't happen unless there's comparable value being traded. And they don't go off hunches as to what the future might bring, they go off history. The same criteria we use common-sense wise when knowing whether a trade was stupid or not. You don't think the other real NFL owners would be screaming bloody murder if the Bengals traded Carson Palmer to the Raiders for Jerry Porter or something like that. And Marvin Lewis says - "I think Jerry's in for a big year". That's laughable. It wouldn't happen in the NFL, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hmmm, and i thought i was the only dictator in this sport or at least some of these hypocrits that would veto many trades if given a vote, would have you believe. Not sure if you're a dictator or not. For my part, I am definitely not a dictator. I don't like to overturn trades, but if the league's overriding sentiment is to do so, I do. If I'm the only one who thinks a trade sucks, it's not getting overturned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 LOL...then how do you determine if a trade goes thru? Does it have to be exactly even? What if one team has a slight edge? A big edge? A hugh edge? Who determines the size of the edge? Who determines how much better or worse a team gets? Your league sounds very subjective, and that leaves room for bias, which has no place in any league. Have a nice time trying to figure out if every trade is exactly even....sounds like you enjoy getting your panties in a bunch if a deal comes up that is slightly off-balance...god forbid if a good team pulls off a good trade to make themsleves better at the expense of another dumbass owner. If you have lop-sided trades in your league, it is your own fault for allowing dopey coaches to participate who would accept an unfair deal. Thank god I am not in any league you commish At least we agree on your last comment. I said, and I'll say it slowly this time - that if I get a bunch of emails from other owners complaining about a trade it will get looked at. If the parties involved have a great reason why it was ok and can convince me and the pissed off owners, then fine. But I maintain that it's not hard to know a bad trade when you see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Not going to rehash an old arguement again Grits, if you desire to play in leagues where the goal is "anything goes" then fine. I prefer a little more interaction with the league and like the idea of league votes if a trade is vetoed by the commish. Many are suggesting that votes are only to be vetoed if collusion is found, and i laugh at that idea. Give me a f'ing break, are we to set up a sting operation to prove it? Or is the commish to use his judgement, yes there's that word you hate so much for anyone to interject, but there it is, judgement to decide if it collusion, and in doing so, that is fine. What happens if your judgement is <gasp> wrong? What happens if when you talked to God and he told you how each of the players in a trade were going to perform in the future you mis-heard him and as it turns out the guy that everybody believed was getting shafted actually would have made out? Do you compensate him financially for his loss? Or do you simply say oops sorry, my bad ... I know you could have won the superbowl had I allowed that trade to happen but at that time it just wasn't fair for the league. Last year before the season had an owner tried to trade Deuce McAllister for Larry Johnson you would have shot this trade down as "unfair" and what would it have gotten you. A bitter owner that would have owned Larry Johnson had YOU not interferred. Here's an idea ... why don't YOU simply draft everybody's team for them ... set all their lineups each week ... do all the trading ... then at the end of the season you can tell everybody who won. Or better yet wouldn't it be more fair to simply take everybody's money and divide it equally amoung all the owners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Last year before the season had an owner tried to trade Deuce McAllister for Larry Johnson you would have shot this trade down as "unfair" and what would it have gotten you. A bitter owner that would have owned Larry Johnson had YOU not interferred. The Larry Johnson analogy is a bit trickier, because he did have some value going into the season, but by and large I say this. Sh-t happens. If it was a bad trade, it was a bad trade. Who knew how it was going to turn out? Let's use this example instead: Anquan Boldin his rookie season. Who knew he was going to have such a good year? Let's say someone traded for him and gave away a top tier RB to get him. At the end of the season, it wouldn't have looked like a bad trade, but there is not a chance in he-ll that would have passed in our league. And ya know what - the guy that would have Boldin - too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I have no problem voiding a trade if someone accidentally clicks on the wrong player on the website or makes some other sort of clerical error. I also don't mind if a trade is voided because one of the parties involved was unaware of an injury - let's face it, some people actually have lives outside of FF and may not know the injury status of every NFL player. If it's a big-money league, that's one thing - but in a "friendly competition" league I don't mind letting someone out of a trade that was based on faulty or incomplete information. However, if two owners, working with the same information, come to an agreement to trade player x for player y in an attempt to improve their team, I don't think the other owners or the commish should have any say in the matter. (Unless, of course, it can be shown that one of the owners is sacrificing his team for the betterment of the other in return for some sort of reward be it monetary or other form of compensation - aka collusion.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 (edited) Az, the only time I've ever seen a trade stopped that was not collusion was a guy out of the playoffs getting a WAY undervalued Vick and SSmith in exchange for LT and an overpriced, injured scrub. IIRC the guy getting LT was in possesion of SA and Holt at top-values, and his other QB was Hass in his first decent year (like I said, IIRC) and the rest of us in the playoffs raised all kinds of cain about that. It was a keeper league, and there was obviously no collusion from these two guys, but it was killed anyway (we pay like $7 a year for site fees - no money). The reason it was killed was it literally made the team getting LT invincible (I know, anything can happen, but...). And the commish reasoned it out fairly well, saying that's why there were trade deadlines and we should have set one (first year) so we set at like 10 or 11 and that's it. i especially dont know how you can kill a deal like this being its a keeper league...the guy with LT was taking advantage of an opportunity to improve his team for NEXT YR...after all it is a KEEPER LEAGUE... if you had a trade deadline that is one thing and if you didnt then maybe you had a reason to put one in place the following year but in essence that league screwed not one owner but two one of them BTW, I had 2 BOTH leagues trades voided as they were "too much in my favor" and both of the trades were proposed by the other side. i didnt know that... can you post waht the proposed trades were, just out of curiosity i would like to see them again i have a question for all these leagues that VOID what they consider to be bad trades....either because they make the league unbalanced or whatever... the question is: what do you do if an owner makes a bone headed draft pick? now for a hypothetical... 1. Its the final week for trades 2. I only carry one kicker and he is out for the coming week 3. I drafted Eli Manning, Brad Johnson and Kitna as my QBs 4. I need to win to make the playoffs 5. I dont like any of the kickers that are avail via waivers 6. I really like the matchup that kicker "X" has 7. The owner of kicker "X" is playoff bound but has been shuffling QBs all year 8. He wont deal me kicker "X" for anyone except ELI Manning. 9. I say OK deal ELI Manning for Kicker "X" 10. I want to do this deal because i have to win to make the playoffs and I actually like Brad and Kitnas matchups better in the playoffs. 11. Would you KILL that trade? 12. Should it? NO and if you think it should then tell me why 13. This was a complete hypothetical but it could be probable Edited August 31, 2006 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 the question is: what do you do if an owner makes a bone headed draft pick? If I'm at a live draft and this happens, I try to tell them that the player they just drafted is injured/suspended if it's the case, or give any other extenuating circumstances. If it's just them picking a kicker in the third, I laugh at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 If I'm at a live draft and this happens, I try to tell them that the player they just drafted is injured/suspended if it's the case, or give any other extenuating circumstances. I was in a leauge where someone picked michael bennett a couple of yrs ago when he was injured and they stuck him with the pick If it's just them picking a kicker in the third, I laugh at them. so you would let someone trade Rackers for say Brady(3rd round is pushing it for brady too)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Would I 'let' someone trade Rackers for Brady? I am not really understanding when it's my choice on to 'let' someone trade? A straight up trade of Rackers for Brady would create some serious discussion. I would need to know the thought process behind the trades. Let's say it's last season, and a team is trying to trade away Brady to get Rackers. The team that has Rackers is a bubble team with an outside shot of making the playoffs. The team with Brady is the top team in the league, and also has Eli Manning and Jake Plummer at QB, who they picked up late in the draft bu who are really lighting it up. They don't need Brady, but have to upgrade Jason Hanson as their kicker. Rackers is really kicking it. Why would you not let the teams make the trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Would I 'let' someone trade Rackers for Brady? I am not really understanding when it's my choice on to 'let' someone trade? it was due to your comment about someone taking a kicker in the 3rd...it wasnt meant to be literal to you though A straight up trade of Rackers for Brady would create some serious discussion. I would need to know the thought process behind the trades. see that is the point i am trying to make....if someone drafted the kicker in round 3 everyone would laugh...but then if they tried to trade a kicker for a 3rd round QB there would be discussion about it...it is hypocritical to say the least(but not saying you are hypocritical) Let's say it's last season, and a team is trying to trade away Brady to get Rackers. The team that has Rackers is a bubble team with an outside shot of making the playoffs. The team with Brady is the top team in the league, and also has Eli Manning and Jake Plummer at QB, who they picked up late in the draft bu who are really lighting it up. They don't need Brady, but have to upgrade Jason Hanson as their kicker. Rackers is really kicking it. Why would you not let the teams make the trade? you would because you have your head on straight...i wasnt calling you out just using what you tossed out there to help make the point is all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 i especially dont know how you can kill a deal like this being its a keeper league...the guy with LT was taking advantage of an opportunity to improve his team for NEXT YR...after all it is a KEEPER LEAGUE... if you had a trade deadline that is one thing and if you didnt then maybe you had a reason to put one in place the following year but in essence that league screwed not one owner but two i didnt know that... can you post waht the proposed trades were, just out of curiosity i would like to see them again i have a question for all these leagues that VOID what they consider to be bad trades....either because they make the league unbalanced or whatever... the question is: what do you do if an owner makes a bone headed draft pick? now for a hypothetical... 1. Its the final week for trades 2. I only carry one kicker and he is out for the coming week 3. I drafted Eli Manning, Brad Johnson and Kitna as my QBs 4. I need to win to make the playoffs 5. I dont like any of the kickers that are avail via waivers 6. I really like the matchup that kicker "X" has 7. The owner of kicker "X" is playoff bound but has been shuffling QBs all year 8. He wont deal me kicker "X" for anyone except ELI Manning. 9. I say OK deal ELI Manning for Kicker "X" 10. I want to do this deal because i have to win to make the playoffs and I actually like Brad and Kitnas matchups better in the playoffs. 11. Would you KILL that trade? 12. Should it? NO and if you think it should then tell me why 13. This was a complete hypothetical but it could be probable I'll play - A bone-headed draft pick would not be rescinded. I see where you're going with this, but they are completely different. For one, no other team is involved. If this person consistently made stupid draft picks, he wouldn't be invited back in. As far as the kicker trade analogy...again, if a reasonable explanation is given, no, it would not be overturned. The scenario you described seems reasonable to me. It's not fair value for fair value per se, but to that team owner it is, so no issue. 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.