Cunning Runt Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) But more to the point, trades should only be overturned if there is proof of collusion....period. Wow... another wrong answer. Whoduthunkit. Edited September 24, 2008 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qball86 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 who are the five people that voted it an "unfair" trade? Love to know what your eyes see when looking at this trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Slaton is/will be way better than Thomas Jones. Cotchery is slightly worst than TO. Ray Rice and Eddie are pretty much up and down guys with no value at this point. Very fair deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Team A is selling high IMO, but that is good management. I voted fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 who are the five people that voted it an "unfair" trade? Love to know what your eyes see when looking at this trade. I'll hazard a guess. They see TO on one side and no "name" stud on the other side of the deal. That automatically makes them want to manage the trade for the poor team trading away TO, since the TO owner obviously doesn't know any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) Slaton is/will be way better than Thomas Jones. Cotchery is slightly worst than TO. Ray Rice and Eddie are pretty much up and down guys with no value at this point. Very fair deal. In terms of Slaton v Jones: Jury is very much out In terms of Cotchery ve TO: Slightly? Are you kidding me? Ray Rice has pretty much no value, Royal absolutely does. So, in short, your evaluation is shighte. Despite this, you've somehow come to the correct conclusion. Congrats. Edited September 24, 2008 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 So, in short, your evaluation is shighte. Despite this, you've somehow come to the correct conclusion. Congrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I don't even respond to these threads anymore because if you have to ask, you shouldn't be a commish. I'm a believer that virtually NO trade should be vetoed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Wow... another wrong answer. Whoduthunkit. What's the right answer? I don't see a reason to veto this trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcmast Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I thought the vote was whether it should be vetoed. My NO vote should be a YES, it should go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I don't even respond to these threads anymore because if you have to ask, you shouldn't be a commish. I'm a believer that virtually NO trade should be vetoed. I believe that Jerry Garcia had virtually no excuse to sing any song but those that he wrote and maybe not even then. Yet despite this, dudes were actually writing songs for him to sing. 'splain that please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beast Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) I don't even respond to these threads anymore because if you have to ask, you shouldn't be a commish. I'm a believer that virtually NO trade should be vetoed. Yo.. I wouldn't have even posted the question if it wasn't causing such a commotion in our league. It has nothing to do with being a "commissioner".. Just because i'm the only one that doesn't mind sitting on a stupid fantasy site and managing the money, etc... doesn't make it a big deal to ask. That's kind of what these forums are for, if I'm not mistaken.. ie...who do i start... bla bla bla. So, thanks for your response-- it was the best one out here. And btw... you're saying, in a league where there is an entry fee, that if somebody was willing to trade LT for Ray Rice.. you wouldn't have a problem with that? Unless you're rolling in money, I highly doubt it... Edited September 25, 2008 by beast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 What's the right answer? I don't see a reason to veto this trade. I don't either. BUT - there are those that say NO trade should be overturned unless collusion is proven. Period. I'm not one who believes in black and white necessarily. In most cases it is, but there are certainly instances where there is gray. And I definitely do NOT like when people on these boards suggest that their way is right and if you don't do it that way, you're wrong. My shot was squarely directed at them. I believe that whatever works for a particular league is what's "right". Not what someone on these boards says is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 And btw... you're saying, in a league where there is an entry fee, that if somebody was willing to trade LT for Ray Rice.. you wouldn't have a problem with that? Unless you're rolling in money, I highly doubt it... That IS what he's saying unless you can prove they're cheating, which to me is ridiculous. That trade would not and should not be allowed to stand. And in our league, it wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 And btw... you're saying, in a league where there is an entry fee, that if somebody was willing to trade LT for Ray Rice.. you wouldn't have a problem with that? Unless you're rolling in money, I highly doubt it... If I'm putting up an entry fee, I'm doing so with the knowledge that I am in a league of good owners. If an LT-for-Ray Rice trade happened in a league I was in, the first person I blame is myself...for putting up my hard earned money on something that had a chance to be unethical. You wanna gamble in a money league with owners you do not know/trust....that's your own bed to lie in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 If I'm putting up an entry fee, I'm doing so with the knowledge that I am in a league of good owners. If an LT-for-Ray Rice trade happened in a league I was in, the first person I blame is myself...for putting up my hard earned money on something that had a chance to be unethical. You wanna gamble in a money league with owners you do not know/trust....that's your own bed to lie in. You're kidding right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I don't even respond to these threads anymore because if you have to ask, you shouldn't be a commish. I'm a believer that virtually NO trade should be vetoed. +1 I didn't vote. I don't play in leagues where trades can be vetoed. Collusion is almost impossible to prove and even then only after the matter/season. If you worry about this, the league sucks, fold it, find new plaers, start from scratch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 +1 I didn't vote. I don't play in leagues where trades can be vetoed. Collusion is almost impossible to prove and even then only after the matter/season. If you worry about this, the league sucks, fold it, find new plaers, start from scratch! Ya, because there are just so damn many people laying around that wanna drop a few hundred bucks playing fantasy football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 You're kidding right? Absolutely not. If I putting up money (it doesn't matter how much, cause everyone is on a different economic level), I am making damn sure either: 1. I am with honest people who wouldn't try to cheat or 2. I am with intelligent owners not stupid enough to trade LT-for-Ray Rice If a trade like that was consumated, I would be pissed, but maintain my integrity, and certainly recommend the colluding teams or stupid owner be replaced the following season. If not, I'd be out. But a veto process, IMO, brings so much of the league intergrity into question....different owners vetoing trades for different reason, trying to determine whats a fair trade, etc. No vetoing, and relying on good owners to make good decisions, has worked in my leagues for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I don't mind the idea of BS trades being vetoed although I've never seen it, I've never seen collusion, either though. I didn't vote. I don't know if the trade is fair or not but I don't look at it and think anything funky is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yo.. I wouldn't have even posted the question if it wasn't causing such a commotion in our league. It has nothing to do with being a "commissioner".. Just because i'm the only one that doesn't mind sitting on a stupid fantasy site and managing the money, etc... doesn't make it a big deal to ask. That's kind of what these forums are for, if I'm not mistaken.. ie...who do i start... bla bla bla. So, thanks for your response-- it was the best one out here. And btw... you're saying, in a league where there is an entry fee, that if somebody was willing to trade LT for Ray Rice.. you wouldn't have a problem with that? Unless you're rolling in money, I highly doubt it... Like others above me have said - nothing good can come from allowing a league-wide veto system on trades. 90% of fantasy owners aren't cut out to be commish and don't understand the concept of trading. Most owners go by name recognition alone and can't understand that new unknown players emerge every year. Most owners think their opinion is the 'right' opinion. Most owners believe they know which players will put up the big numbers in a given season and which players won't. Most owners will veto trades if it makes one team stronger or if it hurts their chances of winning. The one thing I know that is absolutely correct is that no owner can predict the future, no matter how obvious a situation may or may not seem. Even using your above example (Rice for LT) - one could argue that the toe injury suffered by LT is reason to unload him. Would I make the trade? Hell no, unless I'm the owner getting LT. BUT, who am I to say that my opinion is more correct than the owner unloading LT? If LT misses the rest of the season and Rice gets 600 yards and 4 TDs in a RBBC, then the team who owns RIce got the better end of that trade. About the only trade you should veto is a trade involving an injured player (Brady) for an un-injured player. There are probably other exceptions but they are so few and far between, it will smack you in the face when the stinky trade arises. I would guesstimate that only about 1/3 of the 'top' players at a given postion (except maybe TE) repeat as studs on a perenial basis. I'm just guessing there but I think the point has beaten to a pulp by now. Bottom line, no league should allow a league-wide voting system. All trades should pass unless it's starters for non-starters or injured for non-injured (talking season-ending injuries). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I believe that Jerry Garcia had virtually no excuse to sing any song but those that he wrote and maybe not even then. Yet despite this, dudes were actually writing songs for him to sing. 'splain that please. I think the answer lies somewhere between Laurence Maroney and 'what's your paypal address' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I believe that Jerry Garcia had virtually no excuse to sing any song but those that he wrote and maybe not even then. Yet despite this, dudes were actually writing songs for him to sing. 'splain that please. What exactly does a dead fat untalented hippy have to do with any discussion of FF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Absolutely not. If I putting up money (it doesn't matter how much, cause everyone is on a different economic level), I am making damn sure either: 1. I am with honest people who wouldn't try to cheat or 2. I am with intelligent owners not stupid enough to trade LT-for-Ray Rice If a trade like that was consumated, I would be pissed, but maintain my integrity, and certainly recommend the colluding teams or stupid owner be replaced the following season. If not, I'd be out. But a veto process, IMO, brings so much of the league intergrity into question....different owners vetoing trades for different reason, trying to determine whats a fair trade, etc. No vetoing, and relying on good owners to make good decisions, has worked in my leagues for years. Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree, but I do stand by my previous comment that whatever is "right" for one particular league is in fact the "right" way to do it. The blanket statement that "under no circumstances should trades be vetoed unless collusion is proven" may work perfectly for your league so it's the "right" way to do it for your league. Our league prefers some checks/balances, so that makes it "right" for our league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 That IS what he's saying unless you can prove they're cheating, which to me is ridiculous. That trade would not and should not be allowed to stand. And in our league, it wouldn't. So what accomodations do you make to the vetoed owner if LT's toe keeps getting worse to the point where he becomes equivalent to a #3 FF RB, and Rice starts to soar after week 6 and becomes the equivalent to a marginal #1/#2 FF RB? Do all owners who voted to veto the trade evenly divide the amount and repay the wronged owner his FF dues, or is this just a unilateral commish decision that only the commish has reimbursement responsibility? Or do you feel comfortable royally screwing him over a second time in this scenario? 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.