| 0 |
Subject: Need some unbiased opinions about fantasy drama
Posted by: Rob J
- [24349813] Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 15:13
Ok, I'm going to try to state what happened as unbiased as
possible. First the stats and positions: the stats are RIBC (r, rbi,
obp, slg, sb, and the standard 5 pitching categories). The
positions are deep: C, 1b, 2b, 3b, ss, ci, mi, ofx4, util x2, 2 sp, 2
rp, 8 p, 5 bench) The league was started about a week before
the season and the trade was accepted three days before the
start of the regular season.
Now for the drama, I propose a guy this trade for David Wright
(Derrek Lee, Mark Reynolds, and Lyon 3 for 1) Not the greatest
in the world I know but I wanted to get the ball rolling. The guy
counters with Theriot, Reynolds, and Conor Jackson for Wright. I
thought about it for a minute or so and clicked accept (in dyer
need of a premium 3B) and a little surprised at the offer. The
trade goes through the league vote process and doesn't get
vetoed and no one says a thing while it is in a pending state.
Now another competing manager posts something to the effect
of this should be overturned, it isn't fair, etc. The commissioner
even posts that it isn't fair etc after it goes through.
Two days later, the trade is overturned with all players involved
going back to their original team. I post my case and arguments
that the trade went through the official process of league votes
and that the trade was in fact proposed to me (not by me) and
mutually agreed upon. The guy that proposed the trade even
complained saying that he wanted the trio of players and was
surprised the commish had reversed the decision. Another
manager posted that he agreed and the manager that had
originally complained made another post restating his points.
I know the trade will likely go in my favor, judging on how 09
turns out but the fact that the other guy proposed the trade and
it wasn't vetoed (going through the three day waiting period)
seems like an open and shut case to me, there's no collusion
here which would seem the only reason to revoke a trade
after the fact.
From the other side (commish and other manager): the trade is
one-sided, was made before the regular season started so
maybe people weren't checking it.
I guess I can see their point to some extent out of self interest
(me getting stronger) but facts are facts. Not everyone is always
going to be happy with a decision.
I felt the only way to resolve this was to ask the rotoguru
faithful. The Yahoo League ID is 154799 if you want to read the
message board or look at the league at all. |
| 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 15:25
|
So the league had a chance to review the trade, and they didn't and some are now whining about it?
Isn't the league vote the very place at which complaints of this sort are to be heard? I don't think you should be penalized for following the rules here--I'd say that once the trade goes through that is it. They had a chance to raise an objection at the time and failed to do so.
|
| 2 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 15:39
|
I think you have a case about the trade being reversed after the fact.
I have no idea why nobody raised an objection.
That being said I think this trade is so lopsided that it would upset the competetive balance of the league.
The trade should have been overturned albiet before it was finalized.
I would have a hard time staying interested in a league where managers were not savy enough to properly veto this trade.
|
| 3 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49357814
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 15:58
|
It's a Yahoo public league, so no money is involved. You have some stupid owners out there, certainly the trade proposed by your trading partner is Exhibit One of such evidence.
That said, the commish had no authority to cancel the trade. Both sides continue to want that trade to go through. Yeah, some manager might grab his marbles and go home, but you were likely to lose that guy come August, anyway.
You have a right to be upset with the breaking of the rules by the Commish.
|
| 4 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:16
|
To add some additional perspective here this is a annual league for 4-5 managers and the rest of the players are public league add-ins to fill the rest of the 12 spots. I didn't make a message board post because I spoke personally with the commissioner and the person who was receiving David Wright so that wasn't necessary. The commissioner obviously agreed the trade was unfair and shouldn't be allowed, but was trying to please everyone and was hoping it would at least be vetoed. The problem is the requirement was 2/3 league votes and I assume most of the non-competitive public players didn't even check the league until after the trade already went through. The manager receiving David Wright was previously trying to acquire Aramis Ramirez from me and I gladly was willing to accept any fair offer. Since I obviously didn't want a package of Derrek Lee and Brandon Lyon he decided to find the dumbest public player in our league and get a lopsided trade. Furthermore, the manager complaining about the trade initially being overturned has no right to complain because he did the exact same thing in a basketball league where he was the comissioner. He changed league votes to comissioner review and pushed through a trade that only he wanted. If it didn't affect me and my chances of the winning the league I really wouldn't care. Add to the fact I always finish top 3 and had two tie-breaking finals losses something like this will definitely have a huge effect on me. To top it off the manager receiving Wright has a side bet for cash with the comissioner making this even more ridiculous to be allowed. Also, in previous years a manager tried to trade Ryan Howard when he was struggling, but we agreed you can't trade a 1st round pick for mediocre players since the 1st rounders almost always turn out fine overall even if struggling early on (which Howard did of course) so a precedent was established.
|
| 5 | Uptown Bombers
Donor
ID: 035616416
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:29
|
we agreed you can't trade
I don't like the sound of this at all. Overall, the management in this league sounds like a mess.
As to the specific trade, it is lopsided in my opinion. But what is the point of having league review of trades if the commish is going to trump that after the fact. Opening the league to the public comes with its potential problems, ones that you all seem to be aware of since you this is not the first time opening the league.
|
| 6 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:36
|
I dont get it.....If there are only 4-5 managers playing against each other why would you even allow a trade to be made with a team not in the "competition"?
I can understand why you would want to add managers to delete the draft pool but everyone is affected equally during the draft.
Allowing trades with teams outside of the "competition" will only help one team and lead to problems.
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:37
|
I agree with UB. It sounds like a lot of emotional baggage over past trades are being used as an excuse to break the rules.
|
| 8 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:40
|
Basically it all comes down to the issues that occur with having a league with serious competitive managers mixed with non-serious non-competitive (typically also stupid) ones as well. The reason to have to agree on any standard because all it takes is one dumb person to ruin a league by accepting terrible trades. I don't see how it is bad even if the standard was normally league votes to be overriden by the commissioner when it greatly affects competitive balance (obviously only in rare circumstances). This is the same as what happens in real life sports though trades are rarely overturned they would never be accepted if they were this bad (unless there was a huge financial incentive). Last year we had some public guy who decided to draft 6 catchers. Obviously that is dumb, but at least it affected everyone equally.
|
| 9 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:43
|
Allowing trades with teams outside of the "competition" will only help one team and lead to problems.
I agree, I wish you were in our league and our commissioner.
|
| 10 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 18:56
|
That being said I think this trade is so lopsided that it would upset the competetive balance of the league.
The trade should have been overturned albiet before it was finalized.
I would have a hard time staying interested in a league where managers were not savy enough to properly veto this trade.
I totally agree with these thoughts and furthermore I can't understand the satisfaction that comes with pulling off rip-off trades like this when you know they aren't fair. I would never even try to make a trade like that because it essentially defeats the purpose of the game. Why not just play video game where you can pull off any imbalanced ridiculous trade that you want.
|
| 11 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 19:36
|
The trade wasn't properly vetoed. The trade should be allowed to stand.
Unbalanced? Yes. But everybody had a chance to make their stand and they didn't until after the fact. Sorry, too late.
And it sounds like your commish needs to find some cojones. Waiting for everybody else to make a move? Sheesh. No wonder this is even an issue to begin with.
FWIW, we all make stupid mistakes in fantasy sports. If all our stupid mistakes were overturned, we'd all probably win a lot more leagues.
|
| 12 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 19:41
|
FWIW, we all make stupid mistakes in fantasy sports. If all our stupid mistakes were overturned, we'd all probably win a lot more leagues.
Maybe so, but if you are actually trying to compete trading a player ranked 4 overall for players ranked 143, 146 and 191 seems more than a "stupid mistake" unless you are psychic.
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:17
|
I think the "stupid mistake" KKB was referring to was the fact that no one voted to veto the trade when they had a chance to.
|
| 14 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:24
|
Well I certainly vetoed against it and I know the comissioner did, but I don't know who else did. I'm not sure how may you need exactly for 2/3 veto since 2 of the managers most likely won't vote against their own trade. 8 vetoes out of 10 teams especially before the season starts is pretty unlikely to happen with public players involved, hence the need for adjustment to the voting limit and intervention by the commissioner.
|
| 15 | Uptown Bombers
Donor
ID: 035616416
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:38
|
Then you should have figured out that need for adjustment and commissioner intervention BEFORE the league was created. Your experience in the basketball league should have tipped you guys off that there was some potential problems. Since you did not do it before the league started, changing the rules after the fact is pretty lame. That would have the same effect of compromising the integrity of the league for me as an unbalanced trade. You guys are proposing to fix one mistake with another one.
|
| 16 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:50
|
I didn't create the league it is a renewed Yahoo league. All it says under Scores and Settings is "League Votes", but not specifying the amount otherwise I would have requested less. The commissioner of our Baseball league didn't participate in the Basketball league. I took first place in the regular season for Basketball so although I thought it was unfair I'm not going to quit if I'm winning anyway. I really don't see how doing something that preserves fairness is a bad thing regardless of when it happens. In MLB they added instant replay mid-season last year. Some would argue it is wrong, but it is something that increased fairness and accuracy for everyone.
|
| 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 21:04
|
Your commissioner can change the way that trades are processed. The standard is 1/3 (not 2/3). So a trade in a 12 team league (for instance) can be blocked by 4 votes.
You should have the commish check the settings under commish tools.
|
| 18 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 21:13
|
Right, he said he changed it to that now but all that really means is nobody else will get ridiculous trades to compete with the first one.
|
| 19 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 21:41
|
In MLB they added instant replay mid-season last year. Some would argue it is wrong, but it is something that increased fairness and accuracy for everyone.
Horrible comparison. If MLB did what your league did, they'd move the trade deadline AFTER it had already passed. Or decide to change the number of options a player has AFTER all teams had made their final cuts to start the season.
Yahoo leagues should simply require a majority vetoes to overturn a trade. If you didn't get that, then you have a minority of managers deciding for the majority.
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 21:45
|
KKB--I'm not aware in Yahoo of their being a 2/3 vote needed--when there is a league vote on trades it is 1/3 (just took a look at the settings to doublecheck).
|
| 21 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 21:59
|
Horrible comparison.
First comparison I could think of off the top of my head of a reasonable in season change. Like I mentioned before, in real baseball despite the fact the two teams have to agree to a trade in the first place the commissioner reviews it regardless and ultimately has the final say. Don't see why it should be different in any league otherwise what is the point of having a commissioner at all once the rules have been set? I don't really feel the need to further defend the frustration of my position. I'm sure any of you would feel differently if it was your league. I have no idea what the voting settings are personally since I've never been commissioner, but if it was only 4 votes required for our league that would be pretty sad if at least 2 other people didn't vote. Since 3 out of our 4 regulars agreed it wasn't a fair trade I don't think it should have been allowed. However, since the 4th manager said he would quit if it didn't go through the other manager said to allow it hence the reason it was re-instated. Needless to say, I doubt I'll be playing in the same league next year so if anyone needs another active/competitive manager I'd be glad to join.
|
| 22 | Uptown Bombers
Donor
ID: 035616416
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 22:26
|
Like I mentioned before, in real baseball despite the fact the two teams have to agree to a trade in the first place the commissioner reviews it regardless and ultimately has the final say.
Do the other 28 teams, not participating in the trade, get to veto a trade in real baseball? Your comparison doesn't stand up for me.
|
| 23 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 23:14
|
Which is the reason I'd rather have a (fair) comissioner review rather than league votes so their is no argument when it comes to something like this. I guess I was mistaken in the belief that this would actually be a place where people would share the opinion that everyone in a league should be able to compete on a even playing field rather than something like this occur just because it was able to slip through due to unfortunate circumstances. I want to compete and win if possible, but do so with dignity. Sometimes a system is proven to be fallible which means it needs to be re-evaluated or changed. Rules shouldn't be considered to be unbreakable commandments if it is clear that changes are needed.
|
| 24 | holt
ID: 56217300
Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 23:23
|
Sounds to me like you should play in a more organized league. The problem here is a lack of properly established rules and lack of a full league of competitive players.
I'm always opposed to trade vetoes except in the case of collusion or gross incompetence, but I play in organized leagues comprised of experienced fantasy players. In an anarchic league like this one I don't really have an opinion. I can understand how fleecing the non-competitive managers could be an issue. My advice is to build a better league.
|
| 25 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 591302518
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 02:32
|
Having uncompetitive public teams filling spots in the league and allowing competitive teams the option to trade with them is a recipe for disaster. It also can lead to questionable player releases.
Fill the league with competent managers in the future.
|
| 26 | Khahan
ID: 391582715
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 12:29
|
so basically the commissioner believes he is the best manager out there and knows whats best for other teams, even moreso than their managers?
I wouldn't be in a league like that for more than 1 commissioner decision. As soon as the commish shows this line of thinking I lose interest. Why shouldn't I be able to run my team the way I think is best?
The only time, in my eyes, a commish should overturn a trade is in the case of collusion. If he feels 2 managers are trying to purposely stack 1 team unfairly and has some evidence, then veto it.
Otherwise, you have to trust your managers to make decisions that are the best for their team. They are all trying to win. A commish should not have the power to stop somebody from doing something that they think will help them win.
|
| 27 | Great One
ID: 46215212
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 13:05
|
Absolutely agree with Khahan, we can't prevent managers from making bad decisions, or what another manager thinks is a bad decision. If my team has no closer (it often does!), no steals, no 2B and is loaded everywhere else -- am I gonna my trade overturned when I trade Prince for Hanrahan + Bonifacio? Thats what I think can fix my team, I'm gonna do it. Khahan is also right (and Mike D always says!) it should only be reversed if their is collusion.
|
| 28 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 13:25
|
The only time, in my eyes, a commish should overturn a trade is in the case of collusion.
I am getting very tired of reading this kind statement.
I know many of the managers on these boards hold this same opinion and I am not saying your opinion is invalid.
However, it is only your opinion it is NOT the only valid opinion.
If a trade would upset the balance of the league like the trade being discussed in this thread it should also be vetoed with or without the proof of collusion.
I always wonder if the people that hold the "only collusion" opinion have ever been in a league where collusion has been suspected in a trade?
I have no idea how you would even go about proving collusion even if it was suspected.
If you hold that opinion and you dont have proof of collusion but you suspect collusion are you comfortable in voting against the trade?
I would hope that if anyone who posts on these boards and participated in a Rotoguru league was ever found out to be colluding with another manager, that both mangers would be permanently banned from taking part in a Rotoguru league and banned from the site as well.
|
| 29 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 13:41
|
I somewhat agree with you, weukool, but in this particular case there is already a mechanism for overturning trades. The commissioner broke the rules when he decided to unilaterally veto the trade (as opposed to, say, voting against it and emailing the other managers as to why and encouraging their vote against it).
|
| 30 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 14:11
|
The trade blows but it's too late now. Change your rules or go play in another league.
What happens f you made a fair trade for Adenhart and it went through but now it's lopsided because he's no longer available? Would that be overturned now? How long can you change things after it legally went through? 1/3 of eligible league members not in trade is what all of my leagues use in order to vote against a trade.
|
| 31 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 14:26
|
Definitely find another league. If trading with public league managers is such a concern, turn off trading altogether. What fun is a roto league if you can't throw some deals around? I've seen plenty of lopsided trades go the other way, either because of excellent intuition by the 'underdog' side, or by sheer luck. (What if Wright tears up his knee tomorrow???)
But by far the funniest part of this thread:
guy
counters with Theriot, Reynolds, and Conor Jackson for Wright. I thought about it for a minute or so
O RLY? Seems like a insta-click to me. :p
|
| 32 | Great One
ID: 46215212
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 15:01
|
I've been in public leagues where there was obvious collusion. One team kept getting lopsided trades from another all year and it turned out he was running both after Yahoo investigated. Seen another where a pair of brothers were sending QB's and TE's back and forth to cover bye weeks. They weren't trading to improve their own team - they were "help me out by loaning me a TE and I'll send him back to you next week" deals. Their collusion helped open up room on their bench for extra RB's because they both kept very little depth - 1 backup for the key positions between them. This is nothing like that, this guy thinks he is improving his squad with more depth. He may be wrong, but he's trying to improve so why should he be protected from screwing up?
|
| 33 | weykool
ID: 2842717
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 15:01
|
It would have taken me at least an hour to decide to accept.
For something to be this lopsided there must be an injury report on Wright out there somewhere.
|
| 34 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 15:48
|
"So basically the commissioner believes he is the best manager out there and knows whats best for other teams, even moreso than their managers?"
Well in this case I'd say it was pretty obvious to be "gross incompetence."
The other team already had Tulowitzki/Khalil Greene at SS a great OF Kemp/Quentin/Rios/Young and Teahen/Atkins at 1B. Obviously Reynolds at 3B is a huge downgrade from Wright and the other players aren't an improvement over those currently on his team let alone some of the players currently on the waiver wire.
|
| 35 | Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 16:03
|
I, for one, am certainly willing to concede all of that.
Still doesn't mean that the commish can break the rules.
|
| 36 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 16:15
|
I can understand your point of view. However, since the trade clearly doesn't benefit the other manager and it greatly affects competitive balance I think an exception would be reasonable. Furthermore, I can see being a stickler for the rules allowing something like this regardless of anything else, but I don't think the manager should get that benefit of the doubt since he clearly violated the same rules to his own benefit when he was a commissioner in the other league and this "violation" would be to keep the leauge fair, competitive, and legitimate rather than helping one particular person.
|
| 37 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:00
|
The commissioner broke the rules when he decided to unilaterally veto the trade (as opposed to, say, voting against it and emailing the other managers as to why and encouraging their vote against it).
Well in this case it wasn't unilaterally since 2 other managers already agreed and vetoed as well and emailing the remaining managers probably wouldn't help since they are automatically emailed when the trade is accepted by the two parties so if they didn't see that email in time or react to it a follow-up likely wouldn't have made a difference.
|
| 38 | darkside
Achiever
ID: 3590317
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:36
|
No chance I stay in the league if this happens. Incompetence, collusion, competitive balance...all require a subjective decision. I don't dig trying to parse through that, so I think what's important is that
the only thing that is incontrovertible is that the commish broke the rules.
That sucks.
As Walter Sobchak said "Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules." Just replace bowling w/ fantasy baseball.
|
| 39 | Khahan
ID: 486552412
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 20:50
|
"I am getting very tired of reading this kind statement.
I know many of the managers on these boards hold this same opinion and I am not saying your opinion is invalid.
However, it is only your opinion it is NOT the only valid opinion."
Notice I said, 'in my eyes?' That means I acknowledge this is my opinion. But the reason this is my opinion stems from the rest of my post. I do not believe a commissioner has the right to manager another team. This comes from somebody who makes a habit of commishing his leagues.
As for the stacking of players, that points to one of 2 things:
1) It could be a red flag for collusion and should consider some investigation. Yahoo, if notified, will look into it
2) Perhaps the manager getting all the back ups has another deal on the side that is dependant on this going thru. Wouldn't be the first time a manager was thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead in a trade, now would it? Hence, the commish should keep his nose out excepting for #1 above.
There could be others: stupidity, ignorance, non-caring. I'd be willing to give the 'non-caring' attitude a veto like I would collusion, I guess.
|
| 40 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 21:25
|
2) Perhaps the manager getting all the back ups has another deal on the side that is dependant on this going thru. Wouldn't be the first time a manager was thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead in a trade, now would it?
While this is legitimate thought, it would still be a stupid deal in this circumstance because regardless of any side deals you are still greatly reducing the value of your team as a whole. Furthermore, no other deals were announced after it went through so that idea is ruled out.
|
| 41 | An Old Hippie
ID: 522361721
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 21:36
|
Since this is a public league you probably end up with people like me. People playing for the first time or casual players. Wright means little to me but if I was trading for a player that I followed I would want him on my team. It wouldn't bother me how lopsided the trade appeared to others. But if I was a Diamond back fan then I got Jackson. It would keep me interested in playing. But having my trade voided I'm out of there already.
Just a dumb opinion but don't like the idea of voiding the trade especially this early in the season.
|
| 42 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 22:08
|
I can understand your opinion. That is the problem mixing competitive regulars with randoms. I supposed I would be more understanding if this had been something that occured between the other public people rather than someone just trying to get a cheap advantage. If I end up being in a league like this ever again I think it would be wise for the commissioner to post a list of rules to be followed before the season starts.
|
| 43 | The Commish
ID: 0312916
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 12:37
|
This thread was posted in the league in question, and I am the commish in question.
The real point has been totally missed here. For one I called the team that would be getting Wright while the trade was still in the veto process. I told him over the phone, that I would let the trade go to veto process to be fair and let the system take its course. So, to be fair, thinking that no way in hell a trade like this would ever NOT be vetoed, I let it happen, giving apparently far too much credit to the randoms we got to play with us. I told him over the phone that even if this trade went through, under a commish review rule, this would never happen, I would stop this right away.
So based on high attendance at the draft, seeing a good amount of moves being made pre-season by non annual players, I assumed this trade would be veto'ed.
This trade was not veto'ed and it went through. Now there was still 2 days before the start of the season, and as soon as the trade went through, I posted about how this trade should have been veto'ed, and it seems to be very unfair, destroying the competitive nature of the game. The topic was replied too only by annual players, leading me to belive that all of our randoms just didnt not care. The post and discussion continued, only between 3 players of the 12 responding at all, about 8 posts just bashing the stupidity of the other manager. The manager trading Wright never responded at all.
So, based on observations that clearly these people are stupid and are not active enoungh, our league can not have league votes, and it will need to be commish revue. So, protecting what the league is, I reversed the trade. The other manager never voiced his opinion the 5 days prior to my reverse, disbite many blows to his IQ, his basbeall skills, and his team in general.
I will also add that for some reason, said person carries Fukkodome, Sean Gallagher, Jeff Samadjza, and then other cubs starters. But as you can see, he carries people who dont play for the cubs, or are in platoon situations. The cubs starters I have nothing against, but these three players should give you a hint of disater to come.
So I reverse the trade, and after phone calls with other managers that I know personally, I made it very clear that I tried to be fair, I let the process take its course, but that proved to only be as safe as red lights, and even with rules in place, you still have idiots out there to ruin it for everyone. (Sorry for your loss Angels fans, I hope you still have a great season)
So like I said, I reversed the trade, however things came up, and I could not reverse it untill the second game of the season. Sorry for not living and breathing Fantasy Baseball, but I was enjoying ACTUAL BASBEALL by attending opening day.
So then, after the trade was reversed, dispite many chances to do so prior, the manager who traded Wright responds with a quick, one sentence post of "I want these players." and that was it.
So after that, I re-reversed the trade.
Now with all the attention of Commish editting of teams, the other managers have chimed in finally, like I suspected was the case with this not being veto'ed in the first place, it happened over the pre-season midweek. The other managers have now posted at how stupid the trade was.
So, now given that I can count, via post complaints, 5 against the trade. I am thinking of re-re-reversing it. Since that is the number nessisary to veto a trade. And the 5-6th game of the season doesnt even effect anything, the 4 said players are all cold. And its better to do it now since these two managers are playing eachother, and the manager who lost Wright is winning because of the day he had Wright on his team. Wright has a good game that day. So its perfect time to do it since the two managers are playing each other.
Leaving it to league votes was clearly a mistake. And I can assure you, that if said manager who is complaining about me reversing it was the commish, he wouldnt let a trade like this go through for anyone else, and if it had been veto'ed down, he woudl have allowed it to happen.
I still feel that saving the competitive nature of the league is what a commish is there to enforce. The real Commish in baseball continues to do so by changing rules all the time. The All-Star game meaning something, replay, steriods, longer spring training, stuff like that. A fantasy commish only has the power to review trades. That is pretty much all I can do. If said manager had dropped Wright to the FA pool, and grabbed Theriot, then another manager picked him up, I am supposed to jsut say to everyone "Hey, I dont have the cant cut list enforced because sometimes Cant Cut list players get hurt, then your stuck with them, and that is stupid. So I guess he followed the rules, I cant do anything cause I am so moral." No, I would put Wright back on his team, and tell him he cant do that, it kills it for everyone.
|
| 44 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 721308
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 13:12
|
So, to be fair, thinking that no way in hell a trade like this would ever NOT be vetoed, I let it happen
That's not being fair, that's just hoping that somebody else will do your dirty work for you.
If you truly thought that there was no way the trade should have gone through, you should have just nixed it from the start.
It's like telling a kid they can choose between having ice cream or not having ice cream and then after they choose to have ice cream, you tell them that they can't have it because you were never going to let them have it to begin with.
|
| 45 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 15:42
|
The fact that one person who is not involved in the trade is voting for it to be allowed means this league is already doomed.
|
| 46 | Tree
ID: 61411921
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 16:10
|
bad trades happen all the time. in fantasy, and in real sports. im with the school that believes unless there is collusion, there is no way a trade should be overturned.
i think the commish in this league has ruled horribly, and will continue to do so. reversing it. re-reversing it. re-re-reversing it...
seriously..WTF?!?!?!
you guys had an established system. the commish said he felt it would work, and then, when he didn't, he changed course. more than once.
if this is just the pre-season, i look forward to the folly of the regular season.
i've definitely been involved in trades that people considered questionable. last season, i traded joe crede for a possibly injured eric byrnes. the league flipped out. people quit. and lo and behold, it was an utter bust, because Byrnes wasn't just hurt a little, he was hurt a lot.
what would the case be in the wright trade if wright got hurt for the season? heck, what happens if wright got hurt while all this re-reversing nonsense was going on??
the trade went through the correct process that league had settled on, and it should have stuck, and that should have been that.
the commish meddling this much, is bad.
|
| 47 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 16:25
|
While I agree there never should have been back and forth, the trade should have been vetoed immediately by the commissioner for incompetence/competitive balance, but to compare a trade with Crede to David Wright is crazy. Wright is a unanimous 1st round pick (4th overall) while Crede isn't even drafted this year (unless you have a man crush on him). If your league flipped out for that it would obviously be a million times worse for this. And for the people who keep saying, "What if David Wright gets injured" that shouldn't be a factor because:
A. Injuries are completely unpredictable (I traded for both Garnett and Redd in basketball and they both got injured) and the trade is invalid at the time it was made due to balance issues regardless of if it would help the original manager in retrospect or not since unless he has insider info he wouldn't know about the prospective injury sooner than anyone else.
B. The guy receiving Wright is giving up players that are barely better than guys currently available on the wire and of the course of the time there will be plenty of breakouts who are much better. So he isn't sacrifcing anything.
C. The league never was given a choice to "settle" on a process. I think votes is always bad, since it is either everything is vetoed or nothing. Also, 3 managers in our league are potentially inactive since they haven't made a roster move since the draft.
|
| 48 | Tree
ID: 61411921
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 17:23
|
While I agree there never should have been back and forth, the trade should have been vetoed immediately by the commissioner for incompetence/competitive balance, but to compare a trade with Crede to David Wright is crazy. Wright is a unanimous 1st round pick (4th overall) while Crede isn't even drafted this year
you didn't read the post, or you didn't understand it. Crede is no Wright, which is the point, while Byrnes was coming off a 25 homer, 50 steal season. the point is, people flipped out because they thought it was a bad trade, but, ultimately, the end results were that byrnes was essentially done for the season, and a mere shadow of his former self.
a trade shouldn't be vetoed because it's lopsided. bad trades happen all the time. its part of the game.
|
| 49 | Scott G
ID: 3130817
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 18:03
|
True and your point would be alot more valid if Wright was hurt at the time of the trade.
|
| 50 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 18:09
|
[43] That post makes you look even worse.
The trade is lopsided but it must stand now. How can it keep going back and forth? That's not fair to anyone in the league. So not enough people (including yourself) live and breathe fantasy baseball enough to check-in in a timely fashion means the trade has to go through. Or chagne the rules or extend the trade-vote process. There have been trades that we've absolutely hated but didn't veto.
Simply because you wouldn't have done it or you would have "paid" more for an individual doesn't mean the trade should nec. be vetoed. But the timliness (or lack thereof) prevents a veto anyhow.
How can you nullify the vote because you didn't like the outcome?
It's like telling a kid they can choose between having ice cream or not having ice cream and then after they choose to have ice cream, you tell them that they can't have it because you were never going to let them have it to begin with. AMEN!!!
|
| 51 | Khahan
ID: 486552412
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 00:50
|
"So based on high attendance at the draft, seeing a good amount of moves being made pre-season by non annual players, I assumed this trade would be veto'ed."
Here's a thought: Those managers are still active and simply did not feel this was veto worthy for whatever reason. Which means YOU are in the minority thought in the league and based on how the league rules are set up, the trade should have stood.
I for one would stop checking on the league right about the time these overruling shennanigans were pulled. Why should I check my team? You obviously know whats better for it than I do.
|
| 52 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 08:04
|
While I agree there never should have been back and forth, the trade should have been vetoed immediately by the commissioner for incompetence/competitive balance
As soon as the rules are decided on, a good commish should let his league know that he will personally overrule any trades he deems sufficiently unfair, whether they make it through the veto process or not. In fact you should probably try to establish some standards for when a veto is apropriate, precisely to head off situations like this.
And you might want to rethink chasing competetive balance. If you've got a league where one or more managers accept terrible trades, or where enough managers are detatched enough or inexperienced enough to not veto such trades, there's going to be a competitive imbalance.
|
| 53 | Great One
ID: 4425722
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 11:23
|
I didn't see Bud Selig jumping in to reverse the Mets from trading Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano and a bucket of balls, did I? Sometimes you just gotta let people make their own decisions, even if some agree they aren't smart decisions. And if both teams involved in the trade think the trade will improve their respective squads, the commish doesn't have to right to get in the way. Whats next, you gonna reverse his moves if he drops a good player off to a slow start for Tony Clark or somebody random who started off hot?
|
| 54 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 12:04
|
I didn't see Bud Selig jumping in to reverse the Mets from trading Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano and a bucket of balls, did I?
I agree that was definitely a bad trade. However, you still can't really compare it. If it was made after Kazmir had already played in the major leagues for a few years it would definitely be different. There are plenty of seemingly amazing prospects who never pan out. Also, MLB trades aren't the same as in Fantasy because they don't have unlimited access to the same caliber of players that are on the waiver wire in a fantasy league.
|
| 55 | Great One
ID: 4425722
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 12:28
|
Is Pau Gasol for a bunch of nothing last season a better example then I guess? I'm sure the rest of the NBA was pretty pissed, but Memphis thought it made it them better.
|
| 56 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 13:33
|
Yeah, that is a better example. I think there were at least talks about the league not allowing it though. However, there is still one huge difference that only applies in "real life" sports. This was a "good" trade for Memphis because it helped them financially. There is no equivalent in fantasy sports unless there is collsion (being bribed). It is kind of funny though. Kwame Brown is one of the worst #1 picks ever and he has been involved in trades for two great players in Caron Butler and Pau Gasol.
|
| 57 | Scott G
ID: 52320819
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 14:05
|
Oh yeah, there is one other thing to factor in as well. Unless you are playing in a keeper league, which we aren't, you have to only look at the production for the current year. Kwame Brown could be good some day, though highly unlikely and despite the fact that he isn't even on the Grizzlies anymore.
|
| 58 | Perm Dude
ID: 193231017
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 14:07
|
It all sounds swarmily paternalistic to me.
|
| 59 | Great One
ID: 4425722
Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 17:41
|
I agree, the financial aspect does impact some -- but at least from the perspective of the teams competing against the Lakers last year, they thought it was highway robbery. Kwame hasn't looked too bad lately of what I've seen. Memphis did get brother Marc Gasol too in that deal and he's been solid.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|