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 2:30 pm

Matthias wrote: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.


Aren't all trades banking on future value rather than current value? Isn't that the entire concept behind "buy low / sell high." Shouldn't that be the goal of every fantasy owner - to try to predict who is on top right now but won't stay there, and who is on the bottom right now, but should be better in the future?

See, this is what seperates the casual player from the expert players... Casual players look at the current stats and make decisions based on what they see today... Expert players roll the dice, and try to find that diamond in the rough or dump a player at the point of his greatest value for someone who is up-and-coming...

Let me give you an example...

In the Cafe Dynasty League Challenge I am currently playing in with "gurus" from Rotoworld, Fantasy Sharks, Football Guys, FF Tailgate, etc... etc... I passed on stud rookies such as Bush, Maroney, Addai, etc... in the early rounds, and picked up aging studs like Tiki, Ahman, and Dunn... Then in the middle rounds, I "burned" picks on scrubs like Maurice Drew, Jerious Norwood, and Leon Washington... The fellas at Rotoworld subsequently wrote an article on their website shredding my picks...

I'm curently 8-1, leading the league, and looking pretty good for the future with my "scrub" rookies...

It's NEVER a good idea to assume your prognostication skills are any better than anyone elses...
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 2:33 pm

Matthias wrote:
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


I'm currently the commish of 4 leagues... I don't play with folks I don't know, and I'm fairly confident in my abilities to spot collusion...

If the guy with Alexander has no RB's and he's being offered TWO backs that at least score points for a back that isn't even playing, I tend to think he's trying to win a game or two... NOW, if he was sitting on Alexander, C. Taylor, and Dunn, and he was making the same move, I might give it a closer look...
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 2:38 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:
Matthias wrote: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.


Aren't all trades banking on future value rather than current value? Isn't that the entire concept behind "buy low / sell high." Shouldn't that be the goal of every fantasy owner - to try to predict who is on top right now but won't stay there, and who is on the bottom right now, but should be better in the future?


Yes. All trades are oriented towards the future. All trades, as their purpose, to capture the production which occurs in the future.

HOWEVER, that does not deny that there exists, at this moment in time, a certain commonly-accepted value for certain players. And if you vastly pay over that price, then that is what creates the idea that you are colluding with another player or that you're not caring enough to do a bono fide trade.

Let me try again. You don't buy anything unless you extract more value out of it than the price of the good. Simple fact. Econ 101. A cheeseburger at McDonald's is priced at $1.19. Now, it might be worth to you to pay $5.00 for that cheeseburger because you really like it. And you just know that it's going to provide that level of satisfaction to you. But you'd be absolutely nuts to go into McDonald's and haggle them higher than you need to. "No, no, $1.19 is too low. Let me give you at least $4."

So there's one question on if you think Player A is going to perform better than Player B. There's a separate question if you have to sacrifice Player B or if something much less would be acceptable. It's the difference between your forecasting and your deal-making.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Twisted Sister » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:34 pm

FatFoot wrote:
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?


See, this is exactly why league votes do not work... you're reduced to looking out for the interests of your own team.

A good commish always considers various factors for determining collusion. If a team is clearly out of it, and giving away the farm for crap, then the trades get blocked (it's pretty easy to spot).

But yes, a team you deem "out of it" has every right to try and win games by taking gambles on players.

Once an owner uses the "league integrity" line, I know I have a pain in the arse owner on my hands. Nothing will please them, short of complete useless trades (garbage for garbage) or trades involving their team.
Twisted Sister
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2822
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Twisted Sister » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:45 pm

Matthias wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:
Matthias wrote: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.


Aren't all trades banking on future value rather than current value? Isn't that the entire concept behind "buy low / sell high." Shouldn't that be the goal of every fantasy owner - to try to predict who is on top right now but won't stay there, and who is on the bottom right now, but should be better in the future?


Yes. All trades are oriented towards the future. All trades, as their purpose, to capture the production which occurs in the future.

HOWEVER, that does not deny that there exists, at this moment in time, a certain commonly-accepted value for certain players. And if you vastly pay over that price, then that is what creates the idea that you are colluding with another player or that you're not caring enough to do a bono fide trade.

Let me try again. You don't buy anything unless you extract more value out of it than the price of the good. Simple fact. Econ 101. A cheeseburger at McDonald's is priced at $1.19. Now, it might be worth to you to pay $5.00 for that cheeseburger because you really like it. And you just know that it's going to provide that level of satisfaction to you. But you'd be absolutely nuts to go into McDonald's and haggle them higher than you need to. "No, no, $1.19 is too low. Let me give you at least $4."

So there's one question on if you think Player A is going to perform better than Player B. There's a separate question if you have to sacrifice Player B or if something much less would be acceptable. It's the difference between your forecasting and your deal-making.


Sorry man, but when it comes to trading with actual teams... the concept of "value" varies wildly. According to you, should we also regulate the draft??

Fact is:
1) SA had a crappy year when healthy
2) SA return is unknown from a terrible injury for an RB to have
3) The losing team traded for a plug in RB guy + a guy with just as much upside as SA. The winning team traded away depth for a gamble on a SA return.

Vetoing this trade makes no sense.

Go over to the KJ thread... he's been on fire and people still can't get a decent trade offer for him.

Owners will whine on-and-on about "value" in a "lopsided" trade ( (aka - a trade that may help their competition)... yet when presented that same player... they won't give up much.
Twisted Sister
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2822
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Plindsey88 » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:50 pm

Matthias wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:
Matthias wrote: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.


Aren't all trades banking on future value rather than current value? Isn't that the entire concept behind "buy low / sell high." Shouldn't that be the goal of every fantasy owner - to try to predict who is on top right now but won't stay there, and who is on the bottom right now, but should be better in the future?


Yes. All trades are oriented towards the future. All trades, as their purpose, to capture the production which occurs in the future.

HOWEVER, that does not deny that there exists, at this moment in time, a certain commonly-accepted value for certain players. And if you vastly pay over that price, then that is what creates the idea that you are colluding with another player or that you're not caring enough to do a bono fide trade.

Let me try again. You don't buy anything unless you extract more value out of it than the price of the good. Simple fact. Econ 101. A cheeseburger at McDonald's is priced at $1.19. Now, it might be worth to you to pay $5.00 for that cheeseburger because you really like it. And you just know that it's going to provide that level of satisfaction to you. But you'd be absolutely nuts to go into McDonald's and haggle them higher than you need to. "No, no, $1.19 is too low. Let me give you at least $4."

So there's one question on if you think Player A is going to perform better than Player B. There's a separate question if you have to sacrifice Player B or if something much less would be acceptable. It's the difference between your forecasting and your deal-making.


The cheeseburger ananolgy is way off base... When I buy a cheeseburger at McDonald's for $0.89, I know I am getting a cheeseburger, and it will remain a cheeseburger... So, I pay my $0.89 and be done with it...

HOWEVER, if I had a good feeling that the cheeseburger was going to turn into a Big Mac Value Meal by the time I made it to the second window, I might not be way off base to pay $2.50 for it...
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 4:02 pm

Twisted Sister wrote:Sorry man, but when it comes to trading with actual teams... the concept of "value" varies wildly. According to you, should we also regulate the draft??


There really is some sort of shared conception of value. People tend to overvalue their own players too much. But that doesn't mean you can't ever have an accepted value. Just ask all the guys in the Trade forum.

And no, I would never regulate a draft. Someone can draft all players who retired in 1982 and I wouldn't care. All it does is lessen the league by one team. But it still gives all the teams that are left an equal opportunity at the players that remain. Which is a different situation than when there's a trade involved.

Incidentally, if you check the first page of this thread, I said this is a trade that I wouldn't actually veto. I would encourage somone not to take it, but I wouldn't veto it. But I do all my vetoes on commish-based. This looks like it's league votes. Which is more or less anything goes. And I do believe that there are some trades which you can veto in the abstract: that many times the players traded are the only information you have as to whether or not there is collusion going on.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Matthias » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:05 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:The cheeseburger ananolgy is way off base... When I buy a cheeseburger at McDonald's for $0.89, I know I am getting a cheeseburger, and it will remain a cheeseburger... So, I pay my $0.89 and be done with it...

HOWEVER, if I had a good feeling that the cheeseburger was going to turn into a Big Mac Value Meal by the time I made it to the second window, I might not be way off base to pay $2.50 for it...


No. The cheeseburger example is to illustrate that even if you think something is worth more than the current price, you are still foolish to way overpay what is being charged. And it might hint at something underhanded going on. So even if you believe that, in the future, Tomlinson will break his leg and Turner will replace him, you are foolish (and probably cheating) to trade LT2 for Turner straight up. Because you could have gotten Turner for much, much less.

As far as the appreciation in value question: see the stock example.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Postby Twisted Sister » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:18 pm

Matthias wrote: I said this is a trade that I wouldn't actually veto. I would encourage somone not to take it, but I wouldn't veto it.


Why are we on 4 pages now?? :-?

Great you agree, this trade should have gone through.
Twisted Sister
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2822
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby eaglesrule » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:28 pm

the thing with cheeseburgers, is that if burger king had all of the cheeseburgers, then two or three other places had cornered the market on chicken sandwiches...


Ah well. Part of the thing with "value" is that yes, there is some kind of accepted value. But its rough, very rough. And league dynamics and distribution also determine value. Sometimes, you have to overpay. I don't care what people say, at some point, each league has a unqiue economy. You can't MAKE people trade. So if you need a position filled, and you only mesh with one or two other teams, you may have to overpay. Its a fact. I hate that people don't acknoweldge it. I mean what about those teams that lucked into Colston "free". ITs very conceivable that some teams went RB, RB, WR, took mcnabb or brees, then got colston and some other guys late.

The point being, if two or more teams were fortunate to end up like that, and they were also the owners of the most coveted backs, you could be in trouble. Torry Holt SHOULD land you something really nice. But if those other teams have unexpected value at the same position, you are screwed, and might have to take less than top dollar.

There is pre-draft value, there is general ideas of tiers and values, then there is the economic realities of a given league. Point being, if the trades are ballpark, or defensable, you have to let it go.

For example, I should have been able to get more for marvin harrison than willis mcgahee in one league. I hated doing it, hated doing it. But the teams with RBs of roughly equal value to marvin were also comfortable at receiver, and had no impetus for trading, especialyl since I am in the hunt.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 6:42 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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