- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Matthew Berry and the 'fantasy football snob trade argument'
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:23 pm
Matthew Berry discusses the fantasy football snob in his Love/Hate this week. He talks about 'that guy', which this board is full of, but also how it plays into the trade veto argument. And he's right. This isn't directed at the message board regulars that try to help and give advice. This is for the drive-by trolls and know it all's and their 'smarter than others in my league and vetoes trades'.
LINK
Berry with the boom. Collusion only bitches.
quote:
There may be no person in fantasy that drives me more up a wall than the "fantasy football snob." You know this person. The total know-it-all. Their way is right and no one knows anything. I do a version of this column every year, and I will keep doing it until there is no longer such a thing as a fantasy snob. In addition to knowing the "right way" to play, the fantasy football snob ...
... vetoes trades because "it makes a team too good" or "it's part of his/her strategy." Negotiation is a skill in fantasy, just like anything else. It's not your job to coach someone else's team. Everyone should coach their own team, even if it's badly. Vetoes are for cowards.
LINK
Berry with the boom. Collusion only bitches.
4
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:26 pm to ehidal1
Vetoes are for pussies and obvious collusion only. If u trade a kicker for Leveon bell, that's collusion. If you trade Lesean McCoy for Leveon, that other guy is stupid, but that's not your problem. Mutual trade, should be allowed
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:31 pm to Upperdecker
what if the last place team trades Bell to the 1st place team for Nate washington? is that other owner still just dumb?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:31 pm to Upperdecker
A guy in my fantasy baseball league vetoes everything. Half bc he wouldn't do the trade himself, and half bc he is jealous of the trade. He is impossible to trade with also, bc he only looks at stats instead of what each team needs.
The other 11 of us never veto and just laugh at his passive aggressive bull shite.
It used to drive me crazy, but after 6 yrs I just make fun of him relentlessly.
The other 11 of us never veto and just laugh at his passive aggressive bull shite.
It used to drive me crazy, but after 6 yrs I just make fun of him relentlessly.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:32 pm to Upperdecker
Can I trade Khiry Robinson and Cost on for Bell?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:32 pm to Upperdecker
Can I trade Khiry Robinson and Cost on for Bell?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:34 pm to Lester Earl
That sounds like blackmail 
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:49 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
is that other owner still just dumb?
Thats collusion.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:53 pm to lsuhunt555
no its not.
now what?
now what?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:56 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
no its not.
now what?
I'd veto
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:57 pm to Lester Earl
It is.
Now what?
Now what?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 12:58 pm to Lester Earl
That's collusion. Top 3 RB for a WR around #60, collusion. Top 3 RB for top 15 is ok, though stupid. Collusion is an obvious starter for an obvious bench guy. A starter for a starter is ok
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:01 pm to Lester Earl
Lester, I see the point that you're trying to make, that people disagree on what collusion is. However, collusion should be obviously collusion. If it's not, then it shouldn't be vetoed. Bell for Washington is obvious. Bell for khiry and Colston is obvious. Bell for McCoy is not
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:03 pm to ehidal1
There are trades that should be vetoed every now and again. Back in 07-08 (somewhere around there) a guy in one of my leagues offered me Steven Jackson for the Giants D. I quickly accepted and it did not get vetoed. It should had but everyone thought he was dumb. No collusion involved but one could had assumed.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:04 pm to Upperdecker
It's not collusion. Im telling you its not. He doesn't know the other owner at all, and never once had any outside discussions with him.
The guy that traded for Washington needed a WR and went to school at Tiffin University the same time Nate was there. He's a big Nate Washington fan.
He's just stupid, but its no one else's problem. Everyone should coach their own team, even if its badly. Vetoing trades because it makes the other team good is cowardly.
The guy that traded for Washington needed a WR and went to school at Tiffin University the same time Nate was there. He's a big Nate Washington fan.
He's just stupid, but its no one else's problem. Everyone should coach their own team, even if its badly. Vetoing trades because it makes the other team good is cowardly.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:05 pm to Lester Earl
unless the other owner can give you a legit reason that the move makes his team better than it's the commish's duty to veto. the i really dont care or i give up so just give me that guy trades are veto worthy
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:07 pm to Upperdecker
There is no way to prove obvious collusion. In my previous post I did not know the guy. Never spoke with him outside of the draft and one could assume collusion.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:07 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Everyone should coach their own team, even if its badly. Vetoing trades because it makes the other team good is cowardly.
You just made the point for me. In a vacuum, that is collusion, but you have to add the perspective to it. Had you added all of the information, then I would say it wasnt collusion.
But if in one of the leagues I commish, someone who is 0-4 and has a tendency to pout when his teams suck and he tries that trade, no way im allowing it. Yet again, without the perspective its hard to make that determination.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:11 pm to lsuhunt555
quote:
You just made the point for me. In a vacuum, that is collusion, but you have to add the perspective to it. Had you added all of the information, then I would say it wasnt collusion.
No, you made my point for me. Collusion isn't cut and dry. That's why I didnt put any perspective on it at first. You immediately thought the trade was collusion, just because of how terrible it was. If you have to question if a trade is collusion or not, generally it isn't very good for the league balance.
Matthew Berry is wrong here, and i'd argue he lacks perspective.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:12 pm to lsuhunt555
quote:
But if in one of the leagues I commish, someone who is 0-4 and has a tendency to pout when his teams suck and he tries that trade, no way im allowing it. Yet again, without the perspective its hard to make that determination.
so we can all agree that Matthew Berry is wrong here.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News