|
|
|||||||
| 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 | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
10-22-2007, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to be fair.. trades don't need to be fair. They just need to not be cheating. [/ QUOTE ] Agree completely. Most people don't try to make even trades. They try to get the better end of the deal. Just because a trade isn't "even" in your mind doesn't mean something is fishy. Besides, this if this really is collusion, it could have been a lot worse. 
|
|
#23
10-22-2007, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
OP,
Where is your team in this league? I ask because the trade seems a lot more balanced than almost all OPs of this type in the forum and you seem to be arguing on technicalities and not intent. Also, you won't likely win a lot of friends if you have a top team and veto this.
|
|
#24
10-22-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
Ever read the yahoo rules? I didn't make em. [/ QUOTE ] If this is a yahoo league definitely don't veto. I was under the impression you guys wrote some rules. The way I explained it isn't my magical fantasy ruleset. It's an extremely competitive league with very very good owners. This is just how things should be dealt with in fantasy. I repeat.. it is not acceptable for you to place value on what other people think will improve their team. It is not okay to say "I don't think that deal is good enough for your team so I veto". If people are cheating, quit the league. If they aren't let the trade go through.
|
|
#25
10-22-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what rules you would implemenmt if you could make your own league. I care what the rules of my league state, namely: 1. All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team or its standing within the league. 3. No owner will engage in any action that might be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other). This is the standard I have to judge by. Does this trade (throw Garcia in so it's Garcia/LT/Edwards for Driver/Parker/ELi) meet that standard, where one team is clearly expected to be negatively impacted by the trade? Losing LT seems beyond obviously -EV to me, to the point I'd prop bet at at least 1.5:1. [/ QUOTE ] brutal brutal case of sour grapes. Listen go by what these players actually represent. In my pool Eli has 111 points. LT has 147. Parker has 81. Driver has 89, edwards 124. So in my pool we're talking 316 vs 271 that's FAIR. End of story. If you think it's collusion you're just miffed that this *could* cost you the win.
|
|
#26
10-22-2007, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
Great, you're comparing different scoring systems and neglecting the value of the QB who's available for free. Great analysis. And you can't add. It's 281 (3 players) vs. 271 (2 players).
Let's use your numbers (not that it's perfect for predicting the future, but hey): LT is 66 points better than Parker. Edwards is 35 points better than Driver. That's 101 points. Eli has 111 points total. So put Jeff Garcia at 80 (which is probably low), and this trade is way imbalanced.
|
|
#27
10-22-2007, 11:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
I'm arguing that intent doesn't matter, but if I have to argue intent, how is: This person didn't take offers for either player, or both, from 6 people in the league who would have certainly offered something better (and probably did, since trade requests are common), and instead made a clearly -EV trade with his best friend in the league.
|
|
#28
10-22-2007, 11:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
[ QUOTE ]
Great, you're comparing different scoring systems and neglecting the value of the QB who's available for free. Great analysis. And you can't add. It's 281 (3 players) vs. 271 (2 players). Let's use your numbers (not that it's perfect for predicting the future, but hey): LT is 66 points better than Parker. Edwards is 35 points better than Driver. That's 101 points. Eli has 111 points total. So put Jeff Garcia at 80 (which is probably low), and this trade is way imbalanced. [/ QUOTE ] Even if you want to follow the rules to the word.. it talks about the owners INTENT. As long as he is trying to improve his team it is acceptable. What you feel about it has NO BEARING on the situation at all.
|
|
#30
10-22-2007, 11:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should this trade be allowed or vetoed as collusion?
The reason those rules exist is so that some noob who doesn't really understand football doesn't screw the league up for everyone. I don't know NFL players as well as MLB players, but if I'm in a league and Eric Byrnes plus IRod are traded for Arod, I'm going to object. I don't care if the other owner thinks he's getting a good deal with a +outfielder and a modest improvement over replacement level catcher for the best shortstop, and one of the best fantasy players in the game. A trade like that would ruin the fairness of the league.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
