Cunning Runt Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Hey...CR posted something that I actually agree with. Go figure Will wonders never cease. Whoaaaa..... Sorry - I just saw a pig fly by my window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I will bet any amount of money you would like. I'm talking PantherDave type money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 It's a 4 player keeper. This league requires teams to keep 2 players, and has a fairly elaborate keeper system to make certain that all the teams are getting strong keepers. Now I wonder if you'll admit that you're wrong on this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) Actually I think it's the opposite. I'm totally convinced that the player that I pick 82nd will be way worse than Reggie Wayne. I am not confident in my abilities at all. You're the one thinking you can draft a Reggie Wayne-caliber player at 82. I am 99% sure that I cannot. Despite the players posted above that prove that you are wrong, you're still 99% sure? If you'd like to make a bet, I'll take Wayne's stats and you can take the stats of any running back or wide receiver available at 82 in any draft. I will bet any amount of money you would like. I'm talking PantherDave type money. I'll take that bet. You name the amount. I assume you talking about typical .1/6 scoring. You choose whether you want ppr for all players or not. Edited May 31, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I gotta gather up the boys in TOCOL and oust BB and Def and bring in this Caveman f*cker and redassmichael...... carry on It might give you a chance of making the playoffs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Man, it must be nice to be as smart & prescient as you are when the rest of the FF world appears to be so stupid........ BTW - we're discussing a 2 player keeper league. How does he get a 3rd round pick for Wayne again? Now, shall we discuss the potential value of the 82nd pick again as being obviously & surely much worse than Wayne's value? Man, it must be nice to leave out the 10-15 players around the pick in either direction to show how low a percentage that chance is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 I gotta gather up the boys in TOCOL and oust BB and Def and bring in this Caveman f*cker and redassmichael...... carry on Bring it on, beeyotch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) Man, it must be nice to leave out the 10-15 players around the pick in either direction to show how low a percentage that chance is That doesn't matter, does it? All that needs to be shown is that there is a player available at that position or afterwards who can score better than Wayne to completely debunk your "unfair" value assertion. That anyone can smugly and assuredly state what a player's future value will be and then use that to negate a trade is nothing short of arrogance, and quite frankly is idiocy, IMO. Now, does that mean that I think Peyton Manning for Cecil Sapp should be allowed? No - that is either collusion or is so outlandish that the person giving up Manning has absolutely no idea of FF and probably is trading because they like the colors blue & orange better than blue & white. Hence an owner being allowed to raise a concern and have owners explain their respective ends of the trade if the trade is way too far out of balance. Wayne for a 5th rounder in this kind of league does not reach that level of outrageousness, though. Not even close. It's a bit skewed for sure, but hardly ridiculous given the rules in the league. Stop managing other owner's teams by your own value judgments. That's inappropriate no matter what the rules allow. Edited May 31, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 That doesn't matter, does it? All that needs to be shown is that there is a player available at that position or afterwards who can score better than Wayne to completely debunk your "unfair" value assertion. I disagree with your assessment, and it doesn't look like one of us is going to change the other's mind. Value is subjective, and we are obviously showing that in this discussion. But I do appreciate your opinion as it shows that the trade may be closer to the fence than the commish thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I disagree with your assessment, That's irrelevant. We're dealing with facts here, and the facts are, as plainly shown with ADP, that there can be players considered as valuable or more valuable than Wayne by a majority of FF players at or very near the 82nd draft pick. It's the same thing as you disagreeing that the Earth is an oblate spheroid - you may disagree, but that doesn't make the fact any less true. In any case, you are right that we obviously aren't going to agree. But I would strongly urge you & your league to rethink the rule. It's based solely upon opinion of value, and that's the kind of stuff that can bust up a league if it gets heated enough - that it's a hot button issue has already happened in your league. It's the offseason & a perfect time to correct unintentional errors that were very well meant but had unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Good discussion in this thread.... Trades are always subjective and anytime they include a future pick they are even more subjective. In this case Wayne for a 5th round pick seems lopsided ---AT THE TIMEOF THE TRADE--- You can look at this situation in two ways... 1) What is the percieved value at the time of the trade. 2) What is the perceived value at the end of the next season. Hind sight is always 20-20 but BB demonstrated that had an owner had the #82 pick in the last few years there were STUDS avaliable at that pick. We had a trade in latter part of 2004 that involved C Mart for a draft pick and the pick ended up being LJ in 05. The C-Mart owner did not win the league in 04 and the LJ owner won it in 05. At the time the other owners thought it was a bogus trade and looking back it was ... just for the opposite owner. I am sure all of us can come up with an example of a similar situation. Allowing other people to assign a value to a trade involving future picks is the quickest way to ruin a league (IMO). Even DMD with his vast knowledge and resources can not predict value 100% of the time. In a keeper league team on the bottom must be allowed to give up very good players for future prospects/picks or they will not have a chance to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I disagree with your assessment, and it doesn't look like one of us is going to change the other's mind. Value is subjective, and we are obviously showing that in this discussion. But I do appreciate your opinion as it shows that the trade may be closer to the fence than the commish thought. Ding ding ding. We have a winner. That is why you, the commissioner and non-involved owners should not be allowed to manage teams/trades that are not theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 so much so that you solicited opinions here, some of which apparently you aren't the least bit interested in hearing. Having argued with Nick on several occasions over the past several years, I can confirm that this statement is 100% accurate. Asking a question for Nick is not about getting an answer, it's about him arguing his point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Having argued with Nick on several occasions over the past several years, I can confirm that this statement is 100% accurate. Asking a question for Nick is not about getting an answer, it's about him arguing his point. bite me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 bite me. Now that's a tough argument to refute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Ding ding ding. We have a winner. That is why you, the commissioner and non-involved owners should not be allowed to manage teams/trades that are not theirs. See, the funny thing is that I 100% agree that there should be no rules in place where a commish is called on to make a value call. I have argued this point with the league ad infinum and been shut down There is a majority interest in having a Mr. Rogers filter on league trades. The problem being that the rule is in place despite my rantings. This call was made, and most of the league didn't know about it until later. When they found out, most of the league agreed, but a few disagreed.....in particular one of the owners involved in the deal. The other owner involved thought that the commish was justified. It's murky water. I may argue the side of the point that I prefer ( that if a value judgement needs to be made, I think the right one was made here), but I understand that it it not a case where absolutes can be developed. It's an odd spot to be in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Now that's a tough argument to refute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 When they found out, most of the league agreed, but a few disagreed.....in particular one of the owners involved in the deal. The other owner involved thought that the commish was justified. If he felt commish intervention was justified, why did he agree to the deal in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 If he felt commish intervention was justified, why did he agree to the deal in the first place? The guy getting Reggie Wayne had offered choice if a few young, potential keepers in addition to the 5th round pick, and the owner receiving the pick had refused the players. The commish intervention sent the owner receiving Reggie Wayne back to his trading partner to say "Take the keeper for the deal to be blessed. Cut him nest week if you are really opposed to having him", at which point the owner trading away Reggie Wayne agreed (and never cut the player). Essentially, the guy getting Wayne knew it was not a close trade and had tried to make it so, but the other guy had refused a potential keeper play to sweeten the deal. Nobody knows why, except that he claimed not to have the roster spot for him (which was obviously untrue because he was trading away a player for a pick). I realize this changes the equation and makes the dealing sound more shady. I didn't want to polute the discussion with this, and was more curious as to the thoughts regarding Wayne for the value of the pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 The guy getting Reggie Wayne had offered choice if a few young, potential keepers in addition to the 5th round pick, and the owner receiving the pick had refused the players. The commish intervention sent the owner receiving Reggie Wayne back to his trading partner to say "Take the keeper for the deal to be blessed. Cut him nest week if you are really opposed to having him", at which point the owner trading away Reggie Wayne agreed (and never cut the player). Essentially, the guy getting Wayne knew it was not a close trade and had tried to make it so, but the other guy had refused a potential keeper play to sweeten the deal. Nobody knows why, except that he claimed not to have the roster spot for him (which was obviously untrue because he was trading away a player for a pick). I realize this changes the equation and makes the dealing sound more shady. I didn't want to polute the discussion with this, and was more curious as to the thoughts regarding Wayne for the value of the pick. I hate to say this, but this absolutely reeks of collusion. Nobody who is trying to win would deal Wayne for far less than his market value and then REFUSE to take an additional player in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 I hate to say this, but this absolutely reeks of collusion. Nobody who is trying to win would deal Wayne for far less than his market value and then REFUSE to take an additional player in return. Believe me, it was the use of the word collusion at the league meeting that caused things to be an unpleasant mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I realize this changes the equation and makes the dealing sound more shady. Ya' think? Okay, since you've intentionally been deceptive regarding the nature of this trade from the beginning, could you please come clean and name who the "potential keepers" were that were offered with the 5th rounder in the deal? To be honest the whole thing is starting to smell - the deal with the Wayne owner refusing players with the 5th rounder (who I assume he could just cut if he didn't like) and your changing explanation of the deal as well as your changing position on the trade itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Believe me, it was the use of the word collusion at the league meeting that caused things to be an unpleasant mess. I'm somewhat hesitant to say this because I know next to nothing about this guy and he could be one of your friends for all I know, but I'd seriously consider giving him the boot. Do you really want to play in a league with somebody who appears to be trying to tank his team, with no evidence of "rebuilding for the future" or anything like that? I sure as hell wouldn't. And my guess is that the majority of your league doesn't either, and would probably be willing to vote him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 Okay, since you've intentionally been deceptive regarding the nature of this trade from the beginning Not remotely. One of the catalysts for this discussion was a trade from this past season. Prior to the week 8 games, one of the teams in the league trades Reggie Wayne away for a 5th round draft pick in the next year's draft. This league requires teams to keep 2 players, and has a fairly elaborate keeper system to make certain that all the teams are getting strong keepers. It's a 12 team league. In essence, Reggie Wayne was traded away for the 82nd pick overall in the following year's draft, and while he started the season a little slowly, he ended up as the number 2 WR in FF last year. Now, in the previous offseason, we had altered our commissioner's powers from his being able to veto a trade on suspicion of collusion to also allow him to veto a trade if a team was roster dumping players. When this trade was brought to who needed to approve it, the answer given was essentially "You can't do that. Don't ask me to approve it, do something to make it legit". The suggestion was that the team receiving Reggie Wayne toss in a young, potential keeper RB into the mix, of which this team had several but would never keep. The owner brought it back to the first team, who coincidentally had refused to take the young keeper RB in the first place for some unknown reason (claimed he needed the roster spot), and who then coincidentally agreed. The only part I left out was that one of the owners agreeing to the trade was of the opinion he was getting the much better end of the deal and probably too much...and yet had already offered the information that he was offering additional material with the pick. could you please come clean and name who the "potential keepers" were that were offered with the 5th rounder in the deal? To be honest the whole thing is starting to smell - the deal with the Wayne owner refusing players with the 5th rounder (who I assume he could just cut if he didn't like) and your changing explanation of the deal as well as your changing position on the trade itself. How did I change position on this trade? You are starting to not make sense. You are right in that there would be no restriction on his waiving a player he received in trade. The young RBs were Wali Lundy and Leon Washington. Could have been Mike Bell, Vernand Morency or any other of a host of guys that were possibly getting a starting gig. Doesn't matter that much to me. Wasn't a Maroney type, if that's what you are wondering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 31, 2007 Author Share Posted May 31, 2007 I'm somewhat hesitant to say this because I know next to nothing about this guy and he could be one of your friends for all I know, but I'd seriously consider giving him the boot. Do you really want to play in a league with somebody who appears to be trying to tank his team, with no evidence of "rebuilding for the future" or anything like that? I sure as hell wouldn't. And my guess is that the majority of your league doesn't either, and would probably be willing to vote him out. This circumstance would never happen. I would quietly bow out of the league before I would try to evict another member. 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.