Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Sporting Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: $80k-$100k
0-20% 2 11.76%
20-40% 4 23.53%
40-60% 8 47.06%
60-80% 2 11.76%
80-100% 1 5.88%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 10-24-2007, 01:54 PM
.Alex. .Alex. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,754
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

[ QUOTE ]
In general, if your team is bad, it's reasonable to make a trade where you are losing expected points but increasing variance. So trades that would be bad preseason may not be as bad midseason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure of the type of trade that would satisfy these conditions. Surely trading away LT, a single player who can put up anywhere from 10 to 40 in a given week, isn't one of them though.

[ QUOTE ]
This post shows you have little understanding of drafting dynamics.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're wrong.

(See, I can make baseless responses without explaining or supporting them too.)
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-26-2007, 01:16 PM
MCS MCS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brooklyn! What!
Posts: 5,447
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In general, if your team is bad, it's reasonable to make a trade where you are losing expected points but increasing variance. So trades that would be bad preseason may not be as bad midseason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure of the type of trade that would satisfy these conditions. Surely trading away LT, a single player who can put up anywhere from 10 to 40 in a given week, isn't one of them though.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not sure this qualifies either. It seems like trading one awesome player for several good players would decrease variance. I was mostly pointing out that people can make trades that are -PointEV but +WinningEV.

One type of trade that would satisfy this would be one where you sacrificed multiple bench guys for marginal starter improvement. You'd have way more injury exposure.

Another way might be to obtain QB-WR teammates and just hope that your WR goes crazy...you'd risk losing by a ton if they had a bad week, but if the WR catches 2 TDs one week then you get the QB points too.

Finally, you could target injury-prone or otherwise inconsistent players and just hope to catch the positive tail.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-26-2007, 04:59 PM
fingokra fingokra is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 599
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

Attempted thread hijack rather than starting a new one since this one seems to be about dead anyway and it is a similar topic.

Player A has several position players on bye this week and could use immediate help there but has two QBs with very good matchups next week.

Player B is very deep in position players but has only one QB on the roster in a deep league. His QB is on bye next week.

This league is a Yahoo total points league so there are no head to head match ups.

Player B offers to trade Player A a position player for either of his QBs with the condition that they "trade back" after next weeks games. Is this legal, with the rules, ethical, standard, what?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-26-2007, 05:01 PM
capone0 capone0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,906
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

Sounds fine to me.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-26-2007, 05:39 PM
Jack of Arcades Jack of Arcades is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,859
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

standard
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-26-2007, 06:04 PM
mbillie1 mbillie1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: crazytown
Posts: 6,665
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

[ QUOTE ]
B's defense is that he likes the players he's getting (like he "likes" Colston and keeps playing him even though he sucks this year). Even if that's true, from the policies and documentation I've read, if the trade is clearly against a team's best interests (in the standings), it's not acceptable.

In other words, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO THINK HE'S CHEATING FOR THE TRADE TO BE UNACCEPTABLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

then there should be no trading, as no trade can ever be totally fair. you're an idiot if you believe and/or try to enforce that.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-26-2007, 06:05 PM
.Alex. .Alex. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,754
Default Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B's defense is that he likes the players he's getting (like he "likes" Colston and keeps playing him even though he sucks this year). Even if that's true, from the policies and documentation I've read, if the trade is clearly against a team's best interests (in the standings), it's not acceptable.

In other words, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO THINK HE'S CHEATING FOR THE TRADE TO BE UNACCEPTABLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

then there should be no trading, as no trade can ever be totally fair. you're an idiot if you believe and/or try to enforce that.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between a trade being completely fair and a trade benefitting both teams.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.