Answer to any future commisioner inquiries... aka collusion? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Answer to any future commisioner inquiries... aka collusion?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Answer to any future commisioner inquiries... aka collusion?

Postby no1cowboysfan » Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:36 pm

In answer to any further inquiries on whether or not to veto a trade my answer is...

Unless there is reasonable doubt that there is collusion, accept the trade. The commisioner does not have to watch out for the well-being of other teams... if they accept a bad trade, its their own fault.

If you suspect collusion, I can understand if you want to post it. But if not... well... this is my opinion on what to do. I realize I'm only one voice of many... but there's been a ton of those posts recently... (including this one, kind of ;-7 ).
Image

'Cause I'm Cow ... Boy ... for life.
no1cowboysfan
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5255
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: From Diego to tha bay ...

Postby BrutallyHuge » Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:48 pm

Who named you the czar of trades?

Different people have different opinions. Many people believe that trades should just be vetoed only because of collusion. Others think that unconscionable trades should be vetoed too (Jerry Rice and Emmitt for Randy and Alexander for instance).

Don't make a new thread pronouncing your rules and proclaiming that you are right because many people would disagree with you. I disagree, for one.
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby Plindsey88 » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:34 pm

BrutallyHuge wrote:Who named you the czar of trades?

Different people have different opinions. Many people believe that trades should just be vetoed only because of collusion. Others think that unconscionable trades should be vetoed too (Jerry Rice and Emmitt for Randy and Alexander for instance).

Don't make a new thread pronouncing your rules and proclaiming that you are right because many people would disagree with you. I disagree, for one.


IMO, collusion is the only reason that a trade can be vetoed... Because of the unpredictable nature of Fantasy Football, it is really a bad idea to say that a trade can be vetoed merely because someone not involved in the trade does not think it's "fair." I mean, maybe one of the parties to the trade sees something that neither you nor the rest of the fantasy football population does... How do you know you are not vetoing a trade that ends up being fair or in favor of the guy you think is getting ripped off ahead of time?

I mean, what if, at the end of last year, someone in a keeper wanted to trade Ricky Williams for Thomas Jones because they thought that Thomas Jones was destined to be traded, and knew Miami's line was bound to suck complete ass, and might end up with Ricky calling it quits or getting injured... Would you have been in the right to block that trade? Even though it worked out for the guy getting Jones?

I could come up with 100 other examples that would substantiate the fact that because you cannot tell the future, you CANNOT in good conscious tell two people that they cannot make a trade because YOU (AT THIS TIME) do not think it's fair... Why? Because no matter how much you think you know, only history can tell if a trade is fair or not...
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 BrutallyHuge » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:38 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:IMO, collusion is the only reason that a trade can be vetoed...


That's right. It is your opinion. My opinion differs. You cannot convince me otherwise. The original poster was arrogant enough to try to force his beliefs on everyone who posts about a trade in the forum. I understand the opposing viewpoint. I respectfully disagree. You should do the same.

By the way, I didn't read your long-winded rant. Try to condense next time.
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby Plindsey88 » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:42 pm

BrutallyHuge wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:IMO, collusion is the only reason that a trade can be vetoed...


That's right. It is your opinion. My opinion differs. You cannot convince me otherwise. The original poster was arrogant enough to try to force his beliefs on everyone who posts about a trade in the forum. I understand the opposing viewpoint. I respectfully disagree. You should do the same.

By the way, I didn't read your long-winded rant. Try to condense next time.


My opinoins weren't all that long winded... I bet even you could have read through them in a couple of minutes - tops...

Why don't you try it... Because I clearly show you in that "long winded rant" why you are completely wrong on this issue...
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 BrutallyHuge » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:46 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:My opinoins weren't all that long winded... I bet even you could have read through them in a couple of minutes - tops...

Why don't you try it... Because I clearly show you in that "long winded rant" why you are completely wrong on this issue...


I recall in a previous thread that you said that you would let a trade of Emmitt Smith and Jerry Rice for LT2 and Randy Moss go through. Still sticking by that?
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby Plindsey88 » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:58 pm

BrutallyHuge wrote:
Plindsey88 wrote:My opinoins weren't all that long winded... I bet even you could have read through them in a couple of minutes - tops...

Why don't you try it... Because I clearly show you in that "long winded rant" why you are completely wrong on this issue...


I recall in a previous thread that you said that you would let a trade of Emmitt Smith and Jerry Rice for LT2 and Randy Moss go through. Still sticking by that?


I don't remember saying that... But if I did, I'm sure there were caveats to that statement...

In order to let that trade go through, I would have to be shown that there was no collusion involved, which for a trade that apparently lopsided would be an uphill battle to prove... But IF (and this is a big IF) the owner getting Smith and Rice could lay out his argument for me, and had valid reasons for believing he was improving his team (even if I disagreed), then yes, I think you have to let the trade go through....

Now, you have chosen a very extreme example... Why don't you consider something a little more reasonable like my Ricky Williams / Thomas Jones example from above... Would you have vetoed that trade in a keeper at the end of 2003... And if you were the owner who was getting Jones and that trade had been vetoed by a short-sighted commissioner, such as yourself, wouldn't you be pissed off right about now?
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 BrutallyHuge » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:06 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:I don't remember saying that... But if I did, I'm sure there were caveats to that statement...

In order to let that trade go through, I would have to be shown that there was no collusion involved, which for a trade that apparently lopsided would be an uphill battle to prove... But IF (and this is a big IF) the owner getting Smith and Rice could lay out his argument for me, and had valid reasons for believing he was improving his team (even if I disagreed), then yes, I think you have to let the trade go through....

Now, you have chosen a very extreme example... Why don't you consider something a little more reasonable like my Ricky Williams / Thomas Jones example from above... Would you have vetoed that trade in a keeper at the end of 2003... And if you were the owner who was getting Jones and that trade had been vetoed by a short-sighted commissioner, such as yourself, wouldn't you be pissed off right about now?


Edit: I would not have vetoed that trade in your example. I'm only referring to unconscionable trades. That, surely, is not one.

I think an extreme example is the way to go. If someone's favorite players are Emmitt and Jerry and he wants to trade for them, he should be able to, right? No collusion here.

I argued in the previous thread that such trades upset the competitive balance of the league, create an atmosphere of hostility among owners, and generally cause owners to have less fun than they previously had.

I play fantasy football for fun. It's fun to pick players, make a few trades, check the stats, and win a few dollars. But if some owner ends up stacking his team because of a ridiculous trade, how does that add to the fun? 1 owner benefits and the rest of the league suffers. I can't see why anyone would let that happen. You think that you should stick to your ideal of "no veto unless collusion" if it means that 9 people suffer? The happiness of the 9 or so other people in the league is more important to me.
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby awwchrist » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:16 pm

BrutallyHuge wrote:That's right. It is your opinion. My opinion differs. You cannot convince me otherwise. The original poster was arrogant enough to try to force his beliefs on everyone who posts about a trade in the forum. I understand the opposing viewpoint. I respectfully disagree. You should do the same.

By the way, I didn't read your long-winded rant. Try to condense next time.


YOU are calling HIM arrogant?

Ha. This is premium entertainment.

Edit: I would not have vetoed that trade in your example. I'm only referring to unconscionable trades. That, surely, is not one.

I think an extreme example is the way to go. If someone's favorite players are Emmitt and Jerry and he wants to trade for them, he should be able to, right? No collusion here.

I argued in the previous thread that such trades upset the competitive balance of the league, create an atmosphere of hostility among owners, and generally cause owners to have less fun than they previously had.

I play fantasy football for fun. It's fun to pick players, make a few trades, check the stats, and win a few dollars. But if some owner ends up stacking his team because of a ridiculous trade, how does that add to the fun? 1 owner benefits and the rest of the league suffers. I can't see why anyone would let that happen. You think that you should stick to your ideal of "no veto unless collusion" if it means that 9 people suffer? The happiness of the 9 or so other people in the league is more important to me.


Take your own advice and condense your drivel.
Image
________________________________________
26-13
Only 3 leagues this year. No sense in rooting for everyone in the NFL.
awwchrist
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterInnovative MemberSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9433
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: see that 1:hidden? That's me.


Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 20:04 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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