- 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
re: Matthew Berry and the 'fantasy football snob trade argument'
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:16 pm to ehidal1
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:16 pm to ehidal1
I prefer LM veto over a voting system. In leagues I commish, if a trade looks wrong, both players get a message asking why they made the trade. If they can explain why the think it makes their team better, I allow it, even if I disagree. If they can't, I veto it.
1
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:17 pm to Joshjrn
The LM veto is all that's necessary. If you are in a league where the commissioner can't be trusted to determine collusion, find another league.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:19 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
You immediately thought the trade was collusion
Ultimately it depends on your own definition of collusion. Generally, if someone can make any argument or reason, no matter how far fetched, to allow the trade then its not collusion. If you had posed the quesiton to me without names and just said RB6 for WR57 straight up, no one is going to say thats legit, but add names and it changes. Even as simple as "he went to school where I went to school" makes it legitimate, because the guy wants him no matter the cost.
quote:
Matthew Berry is wrong here, and i'd argue he lacks perspective.
I agree that he lacks perspective and paints with a broad brush, but if a trade is clearly collusion then it shouldn't be allowed. But as I stated above one sided trade =\= collusion.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:22 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
Collusion is an obvious starter for an obvious bench guy
Not it isn't.
Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:
The obvious bench guy could be someone the other owner thinks is about to breakout based on their research (it does happen) and maybe he's expecting D Will to take over some touches in the offense bc D Will proved he can handle the offense.
Outside of family members, it is damn near impossible to determine collusion. In the league I run, we have only have 4 rules for trades:
1) No collusion (obvious one, but damn near impossible to determine)
2) Team eliminated from playoffs cannot trade
3) Trades amongst family members will be dissected (in 10+ years, only 1 trade was questioned)
4) No borrowing players
This post was edited on 10/9/15 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:24 pm to lsuhunt555
quote:
I agree that he lacks perspective and paints with a broad brush, but if a trade is clearly collusion then it shouldn't be allowed. But as I stated above one sided trade =\= collusion.
hey, i dont disagree with this premise at all. Let everyone run their team the way they want to. But there has to be some boundaries. As a league commish, I have to look out for the well being of my league. A trade is only between 2 teams, but there are 10 other owners who can be affected by outlandish bullshite.
Yea, so maybe I am that guy that wants to make sure that the playing field is fair for everyone. In 7 years I think we have 1 veto. So it's not like it happens a ton. But to say that I dont look over every trade carefully would be a lie.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:25 pm to Lester Earl
People who bitch about Vetoes are just as bad.
I'm not going sit around and allow some idiot to sell the farm and make another team the clear cut favorite
Deal with it
I'm not going sit around and allow some idiot to sell the farm and make another team the clear cut favorite
Deal with it
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:27 pm to Lester Earl
Agreed
It doesn't deal with 2 teams, it changes the entire league
It doesn't deal with 2 teams, it changes the entire league
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:30 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
In 7 years I think we have 1 veto. So it's not like it happens a ton. But to say that I dont look over every trade carefully would be a lie.
Last year we had the closest thing weve ever had to a veto in almost 10 years. So needless to say, the whole "Collusion" thing doesn't come up often, but i don't play in some of the D-Bag leagues that get posted about on this board.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:34 pm to VermilionTiger
quote:
People who bitch about Vetoes are just as bad.
I'm not going sit around and allow some idiot to sell the farm and make another team the clear cut favorite
Deal with it
I've literally seen trades get vetoed, and then a few weeks later, everyone would kill to have the "bad side" of the trade because a guy blew up. You likely would have vetoed a Shady for Devonta Freeman trade in Week 2, yet here we are.
Stop being a bitch.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:40 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
2) Team eliminated from playoffs cannot trade
3) Trades amongst family members will be dissected (in 10+ years, only 1 trade was questioned)
4) No borrowing players
#2 and #4 are the only times trades should not be allowed.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:40 pm to ehidal1
this is where i add: did you all know matthew berry co-wrote crocodile dundee in los angeles?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:48 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
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 1:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is where i add: did you all know matthew berry co-wrote crocodile dundee in los angeles?
don't forget desperate housewives.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 1:53 pm to Dan Bilzerian
say it to my face
Posted on 10/9/15 at 2:04 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Vetoing trades because it makes the other team good is cowardly.
I agree.
quote:
A trade is only between 2 teams, but there are 10 other owners who can be affected by outlandish bullshite.
I also agree. there is fine line sometimes.
so what did you do about the Nate/Bell trade?
Posted on 10/9/15 at 2:06 pm to Mouth
It was hypothetical but not something i would have allowed as a commissioner
Posted on 10/9/15 at 2:13 pm to Lester Earl
You make it sound like you want to be on the safe side and veto when a trade is in question. But if you've only vetoed once in 7 years, then it sounds like you let most trades in question go and only veto when the collusion is clear and obvious. That's my argument here, obviously one sided trades to the point of making one team much better and one team much worse should be vetoed. Everything else should be allowed
Posted on 10/9/15 at 2:16 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
But if you've only vetoed once in 7 years, then it sounds like you let most trades in question go and only veto when the collusion is clear and obvious.
or he just doesnt have a league with a bunch of idiots playing.
Posted on 10/9/15 at 2:18 pm to Upperdecker
quote:
then it sounds like you let most trades in question go and only veto when the collusion is clear and obvious
Again, no. I don't like blanket statements that "only colluded trades should be vetoed".
the one trade ive vetoed wasn't collusion. Just horribly lopsided between a last place team and a first place team.
I feel like you may not know the definition of collusion. Someone posted it earlier. It's when 2 teams get together & collaborate on an unbalanced trade.
I've never once said I only vote down colluded trades. Just the opposite, in fact.
This post was edited on 10/9/15 at 2:18 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News