Pissed off about this being Vetoed - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Pissed off about this being Vetoed

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Plindsey88 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:34 pm

Matthias wrote:Bah. There's a reason that players get drafted in certain spots. And crystal ball or no, past performance is generally an indicator of future success.

And as far as being in Week 9: well, weeks 1-8 are come and gone now as well. The question isn't if SA will have a productive year, but whether or not he will have a productive rest of the year. And he has much better odds of returning sooner and having productive games when he does than T. Bell or Barber.

As an aside, can we be realistic here? Just for a second? Because for all this, "I don't know the future" crap, we DO have some sort of expectations. You WOULD bet that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. You DO believe that national elections will be held tomorrow. You DO believe that your best friend won't sleep with your girlfriend/wife. So we do make reasonable forecasts all the time. Some forecasts in sports are more spotty. When will a player return from injury? What will their stats be like once they do? But we can still apply reason and come up with some sorts of forecasts.


OK, let me pose this situation to you...

Let's say after week 1, someone in your league tried to trade Kurt Warner (23 FFP in week 1) for Damon Huard (7 FFP in week 1)... All of you "integrity of the league" folks out there would say "Hell No" and vote to veto this trade... Maybe the guy getting Huard figured with Green out for several weeks, he'd rather take his chances with a young gun and didn't trust Warner to finish the season... So, you and your league mates vote to veto the trade because it's so "lopsided." What would you have to say to that guy now? "Oops... Sorry... Guess you were right?" The fact of the matter is that no one can predict the future... And who are you to tell another owner that you feel your predictions are better than his? By vetoing trades for any reason other than blatant collusion, you are basically telling another owner that you feel you are more psychic than he is, and you're choosing to manage his team accordingly...

Nope... Collusion is THE ONE AND ONLY reason to EVER veto a trade, and the determination of collusion should rest squarely on the shoulders of a competent commissioner... Period... End of story... If you feel your commissioner isn't qualified to make those decisions, you shouldn't play in his league...
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Plindsey88 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:35 pm

FatFoot wrote:So you guys think that a trade should go through if it's not collusion, no matter what? No matter how it could impact the whole leage, and no matter how fair it may or may not be, collusion is the only veto one should consider?


In a word...

Yes...
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Goody » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:53 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:
Matthias wrote:Bah. There's a reason that players get drafted in certain spots. And crystal ball or no, past performance is generally an indicator of future success.

And as far as being in Week 9: well, weeks 1-8 are come and gone now as well. The question isn't if SA will have a productive year, but whether or not he will have a productive rest of the year. And he has much better odds of returning sooner and having productive games when he does than T. Bell or Barber.

As an aside, can we be realistic here? Just for a second? Because for all this, "I don't know the future" crap, we DO have some sort of expectations. You WOULD bet that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. You DO believe that national elections will be held tomorrow. You DO believe that your best friend won't sleep with your girlfriend/wife. So we do make reasonable forecasts all the time. Some forecasts in sports are more spotty. When will a player return from injury? What will their stats be like once they do? But we can still apply reason and come up with some sorts of forecasts.


OK, let me pose this situation to you...

Let's say after week 1, someone in your league tried to trade Kurt Warner (23 FFP in week 1) for Damon Huard (7 FFP in week 1)... All of you "integrity of the league" folks out there would say "Hell No" and vote to veto this trade... Maybe the guy getting Huard figured with Green out for several weeks, he'd rather take his chances with a young gun and didn't trust Warner to finish the season... So, you and your league mates vote to veto the trade because it's so "lopsided." What would you have to say to that guy now? "Oops... Sorry... Guess you were right?" The fact of the matter is that no one can predict the future... And who are you to tell another owner that you feel your predictions are better than his? By vetoing trades for any reason other than blatant collusion, you are basically telling another owner that you feel you are more psychic than he is, and you're choosing to manage his team accordingly...

Nope... Collusion is THE ONE AND ONLY reason to EVER veto a trade, and the determination of collusion should rest squarely on the shoulders of a competent commissioner... Period... End of story... If you feel your commissioner isn't qualified to make those decisions, you shouldn't play in his league...


I couldn't have said it better myself! ;-D
Image
OKCHomers
OKCFFL Auction
Goody
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2413
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby TheRawDAWG » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:12 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:
Matthias wrote:Bah. There's a reason that players get drafted in certain spots. And crystal ball or no, past performance is generally an indicator of future success.

And as far as being in Week 9: well, weeks 1-8 are come and gone now as well. The question isn't if SA will have a productive year, but whether or not he will have a productive rest of the year. And he has much better odds of returning sooner and having productive games when he does than T. Bell or Barber.

As an aside, can we be realistic here? Just for a second? Because for all this, "I don't know the future" crap, we DO have some sort of expectations. You WOULD bet that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. You DO believe that national elections will be held tomorrow. You DO believe that your best friend won't sleep with your girlfriend/wife. So we do make reasonable forecasts all the time. Some forecasts in sports are more spotty. When will a player return from injury? What will their stats be like once they do? But we can still apply reason and come up with some sorts of forecasts.


OK, let me pose this situation to you...

Let's say after week 1, someone in your league tried to trade Kurt Warner (23 FFP in week 1) for Damon Huard (7 FFP in week 1)... All of you "integrity of the league" folks out there would say "Hell No" and vote to veto this trade... Maybe the guy getting Huard figured with Green out for several weeks, he'd rather take his chances with a young gun and didn't trust Warner to finish the season... So, you and your league mates vote to veto the trade because it's so "lopsided." What would you have to say to that guy now? "Oops... Sorry... Guess you were right?" The fact of the matter is that no one can predict the future... And who are you to tell another owner that you feel your predictions are better than his? By vetoing trades for any reason other than blatant collusion, you are basically telling another owner that you feel you are more psychic than he is, and you're choosing to manage his team accordingly...

Nope... Collusion is THE ONE AND ONLY reason to EVER veto a trade, and the determination of collusion should rest squarely on the shoulders of a competent commissioner... Period... End of story... If you feel your commissioner isn't qualified to make those decisions, you shouldn't play in his league...



And what if someone traded LT in the first week for Gore when Gore had the better start? And the owner getting LT already had LJ...that trade should have gone through too? You have to use some common sense as well. I liked Mattias' stock market analogy. An injured SA 1 week away from returning should be worth more than an injured indefinately possible BU RB and an actual BU RB. If a trade is so lopsided will destroy the integrity of the league because one of the owners doesn't have a clue...and especially if that owner is in last place...that trade should go through?
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1599
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Up in Canada

Postby Matthias » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:12 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:OK, let me pose this situation to you...

Let's say after week 1, someone in your league tried to trade Kurt Warner (23 FFP in week 1) for Damon Huard (7 FFP in week 1)... All of you "integrity of the league" folks out there would say "Hell No" and vote to veto this trade... Maybe the guy getting Huard figured with Green out for several weeks, he'd rather take his chances with a young gun and didn't trust Warner to finish the season...


No. Complete strawman fabrication. I don't think anyone would have vetoed that trade. You're talking questionable QB for questionable QB. Now, if you were talking Peyton for Huard, then yah, I would've vetoed.

Plindsey88 wrote:So, you and your league mates vote to veto the trade because it's so "lopsided." What would you have to say to that guy now? "Oops... Sorry... Guess you were right?" The fact of the matter is that no one can predict the future... And who are you to tell another owner that you feel your predictions are better than his? By vetoing trades for any reason other than blatant collusion, you are basically telling another owner that you feel you are more psychic than he is, and you're choosing to manage his team accordingly...


No. I'm recognizing that there are ideas of value that you don't need to be psychic to know. As per my example earlier, a Turner for Tomlinson deal looks great and psychic if Tomlinson breaks his leg. But it looks like a ridiculous trade looking at it from a current value perspective.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Plindsey88 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:15 pm

Matthias wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:OK, let me pose this situation to you...

Let's say after week 1, someone in your league tried to trade Kurt Warner (23 FFP in week 1) for Damon Huard (7 FFP in week 1)... All of you "integrity of the league" folks out there would say "Hell No" and vote to veto this trade... Maybe the guy getting Huard figured with Green out for several weeks, he'd rather take his chances with a young gun and didn't trust Warner to finish the season...


No. Complete strawman fabrication. I don't think anyone would have vetoed that trade. You're talking questionable QB for questionable QB. Now, if you were talking Peyton for Huard, then yah, I would've vetoed.


Oh, and I suppose a RB coming off a broken foot isn't a questionable RB?
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Plindsey88 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:16 pm

TheRawDAWG wrote:And what if someone traded LT in the first week for Gore when Gore had the better start? And the owner getting LT already had LJ...that trade should have gone through too?



Yes... Assuming it wasn't collusion...
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Matthias » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:17 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:
Matthias wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:OK, let me pose this situation to you...

Let's say after week 1, someone in your league tried to trade Kurt Warner (23 FFP in week 1) for Damon Huard (7 FFP in week 1)... All of you "integrity of the league" folks out there would say "Hell No" and vote to veto this trade... Maybe the guy getting Huard figured with Green out for several weeks, he'd rather take his chances with a young gun and didn't trust Warner to finish the season...


No. Complete strawman fabrication. I don't think anyone would have vetoed that trade. You're talking questionable QB for questionable QB. Now, if you were talking Peyton for Huard, then yah, I would've vetoed.


Oh, and I suppose a RB coming off a broken foot isn't a questionable RB?


A little bit. But you still have one RB coming off of a broken foot who was the NFL MVP last year and the fantasy co-MVP last year. Compared to the other RB who just got injured, isn't clear how long he'll be injured, hasn't ever started a full season, and is in a situation where the coach is notorious for creating RBBC messes.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Matthias » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:18 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:
TheRawDAWG wrote:And what if someone traded LT in the first week for Gore when Gore had the better start? And the owner getting LT already had LJ...that trade should have gone through too?


Yes... Assuming it wasn't collusion...


Quick question: how do you know in a case like this the teams aren't colluding? Do you ask them? :-b
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby FatFoot » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:19 pm

eaglesrule wrote:spite is collusions' ugly sister. Of course those spite moves, where it can't even be argued that someone is trying to improve their team should get made.

But "league balance" to me is an unfair criteria. The point of this game is that it is a competitive exercise. There will always be haves and have nots


I guess that to me, there are trades that could be made that can only be described as taking advantage of another owner, which unbalance the league.
Taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge, lack of experience, their homerism ("Oh, I love Clinton Portis!") etc. It may be the kind of thing wherein you have to seriously consider whether or not to invite that owner back next year.
But the fact of the matter is, there are trades than can make some teams moderately worse, while making another significantly better.

In our league, there's one dude runnin' the table right now.
My division is extremely, extremely close... last place and first place are separated by 2 games, and last place has 6 fewer FF points than first place.
Every game counts in my division.
The other division has 2 teams that are pretty much out of it.
Should they be allowed to trade their studs to teams in my division, for significantly below their value?
Would you allow a Bulger for Andrew Walter + Eric Parker kind of trade, where the Bulger team is not a competitor anymore and the team trading the other 2 is fighting for a chance in the other division, but with really poor QBs?
FatFoot
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3259
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: In the Belly of the Beast

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 22:24 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact