Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

baltimore_boy

Roto Legends League

Recommended Posts

Still voting to vetoing it. He pretty much traded a guy who wasn't on his team and either way you're circumventing the add/drop rules - I'd consider him assisting you in doing taht in that fashion to be borederline collusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn, I keep forgetting this forum exists, have to subscribe to it or something so get reminders when guys post, don't even know if RW has thread subscriptions

(and btw am getting pretty tired of the service unavailable issues too)

Hey Jmad, hope enjoy(ed) your road trip through the Smokies, I drove through there twice, once alone and once with a couple of buds in college, some of the most beautiful mountains ever been through

@ old hippie-- I like your Phillips counter too, get everything you can for BP right now, own him on 2 teams and if he can stay mostly healthy this year he's primed for a nice season.. I know BP pisses off some people and others just think he;s dull but I love the dude, thought it was hilarious he was swirling his bat around like a cane after a walkoff sac fly

and yeah, have been surprised at some of the closer drops too. And I guess I'm the desperate idiot who picked up Marmol, feel like I just invited the trojan horse into the middle of my living room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted to veto the trade also. Seems unethical to trade a player you don't have on your roster to complete a different trade. Also, it gave a free add/drop this week.

On a positive note (at least for me) it is nice to know that I am not the only one having problems with these forums. You can get email alerts when any one of us posts words of wisdom by clicking on the "follow this topic" up at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: wow, didn't see posts about the Smyley trade, having tons of trouble getting RW to load so it took forever just to put my post. I understand the the confusion/veto of the deal, Rob and I should have posted something that a waiver claim was essentially a player to be named later as part of the deal. Yes, it's a way around the weekly limit on moves but I personally didn't have an issue with that, it was a way, in my mind, of working the system, If you guys veto the deal so be it, like I said I understand it and bow to the majority, we really should have posted something about that. But I never even considered it anything like real "collusion", apologies to all if it came off as that.

btw, I tried to edit my previous post but got the "do not have permission to edit this", maybe just a temp glitch, hard to tell with the way RW's server has been having issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still voting to vetoing it. He pretty much traded a guy who wasn't on his team and either way you're circumventing the add/drop rules - I'd consider him assisting you in doing taht in that fashion to be borederline collusion.

Borderline collusion? That's mighty strong language I take some offense to and I question how you came to that conclusion.

Heck, trading in itself 'circumvents the add/drop rules'. Or at least it can.

I see nothing in the rules against my actions nor do I see what was wrong with the move. I told him to pick up Smyly and make it part of the trade. Would it have been suddenly more legitimate if it had gone through with fhe Stanton deal? Btw, he offered it immediately after picking up Drew - I had mostly stepped away from internet for a couple days for some personal matters but meant to accept it that day. Would it be more legitimate if I had given him some player I dropped anyway and waited a couple days to pick up Matusz? Was somebody really going to beat me to him?

I understand this is not the most typical of trades but I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's within the rules, the spirit of the rules, and is essentially no different from a standard trade it's just been broken apart in 2 separate transactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again I should have posted that detail earlier. I do apologize to the league for not running here to post it/inform you sooner. Any details of a trade not easily seen should always be posted to keep everyone out of the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not vetoing it. I don't like to veto trades. For something like this in the future though, either pick him up and include him in the trade, or put a note either here or on the league board about it to make it clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can it be within the spirit of the rules? You yourself admitted that it was a way to circumvent the rule about add/drops. You had already used your 5 for the week. You can justify it anyway you want, but it definitely isn't in the spirit of the rules.

Guess I was mistaken. I never realized that in fantasy sports there can be players to be named later. Or I could tell another manager what player he would need to pick up off of waivers to complete a trade because I didn't have an add left.

Whatever though this was supposed to be a fun league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted to veto the trade also. Seems unethical to trade a player you don't have on your roster to complete a different trade.

What if I told him "I'm going to trade you these players for Stanton and Smyly." Then he picks up Smyly and trades both to me. Same result either way! That isn't illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not vetoing it. I don't like to veto trades. For something like this in the future though, either pick him up and include him in the trade, or put a note either here or on the league board about it to make it clearer.

Completely agree I should have posted a league note asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was done to circumvent league rules. You yourself admitted it.

If I post that I am going to do something to circumvent the rules we agreed to play by, does that make it right?

Like I said, for me it was a learning experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still voting to vetoing it. He pretty much traded a guy who wasn't on his team and either way you're circumventing the add/drop rules - I'd consider him assisting you in doing taht in that fashion to be borederline collusion.

Borderline collusion? That's mighty strong language I take some offense to and I question how you came to that conclusion.

Heck, trading in itself 'circumvents the add/drop rules'. Or at least it can.

I see nothing in the rules against my actions nor do I see what was wrong with the move. I told him to pick up Smyly and make it part of the trade. Would it have been suddenly more legitimate if it had gone through with fhe Stanton deal? Btw, he offered it immediately after picking up Drew - I had mostly stepped away from internet for a couple days for some personal matters but meant to accept it that day. Would it be more legitimate if I had given him some player I dropped anyway and waited a couple days to pick up Matusz? Was somebody really going to beat me to him?

I understand this is not the most typical of trades but I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's within the rules, the spirit of the rules, and is essentially no different from a standard trade it's just been broken apart in 2 separate transactions.

Yeah, I never once felt anything like 'collusion'-- the Stanton deal was what you guys saw plus a waiver claim by me to then be sent to Rob. I was fine with that, never felt so much as a whiff of collusion, it was just a player to be named later which, in a different way, I've done before in other leagues though always with a mssg to the league first, so sorry again overlooked that..

Again, no doubt we should have posted something about this all and basically gotten an okay from the league. I'm used to Y and to a much lesser extent CBS, and Y! won't allow a one-player deal, it surprised me ESPN did. I couldn't even make it work the first time when I tried to send the deal and Rob offered to send me back Rondon if Espn wouldn't allow it. I tried sending the deal again, this time skipping the step where it asked which of Rob's players I wanted, and it went through.

In past Y! leagues I've done players to be named later type deals but it was always via the waiver wire where we messaged the league saying one person was going to waive a guy and could others please not make a claim, no one ever said anything about it (except jokes they were going to jump on so and so) and it always went through.

Those are the details of what happened. Like Rob said, *any* trade effectively means having more moves a week, so IDK what to say about that aspect. There's no doubt we should have messaged everyone, I'm sorry we didn't and I apologize that it came off as something shady. I accept the veto and if you guys want Rob and I can redo the deal with me getting Rondon or whoever, and if any deal between Rob and I involving Smyley is viewed as uncool I'll simply drop the guy and whoever wants him can have him. But cheating and collusion, well...are we in front of St Just and Robespierre cause if so I guess I'll put my affairs in order and head on up to the guillotine.

Not messaging was an oversight and rude to the league, regret it for the anger it's caused or any bad feelings, believe me the spirit of it wasn't meant to be anything dirty. Anyone can say anything on an internet forum but I don't collude and I don't cheat, there's enough BS in life without bringing that crap into a game like FBB, never mind with guys you've "known" for a certain period and respect, and if I ever thought the Smyley part was genuinely underhanded I wouldn't have done the deal. Sorry it's caused problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with AOH. You literally said that you did it to circumvent add drop rules. Any instance in which one team assists another team in circumventing rules in order to better their team (i.e. adding a player) is collusion in my book. I get that it wasn't your intent to create this much controversy but to answer your question, yes adding smyly in the initial deal would make this legit. I don't see why you couldn't have just waited until smyly was on the team with all of the players in order to do the stanton deal. I don't see why you should be offended. I voted to veto and I feel an explanation is necessary in that case and that's just where I stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was done to circumvent league rules. You yourself admitted it.

It was an admittedly a poor choice of words, but getting *any* pitcher back from him essentially accomplished the same thing. Whether it was a pitcher he already had or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with AOH. You literally said that you did it to circumvent add drop rules. Any instance in which one team assists another team in circumventing rules in order to better their team (i.e. adding a player) is collusion in my book. I get that it wasn't your intent to create this much controversy but to answer your question, yes adding smyly in the initial deal would make this legit. I don't see why you couldn't have just waited until smyly was on the team with all of the players in order to do the stanton deal. I don't see why you should be offended. I voted to veto and I feel an explanation is necessary in that case and that's just where I stand.

Tossing the term "collusion" around is in my experience a very serious accusation. Perhaps in your dealings it has a lesser impact, but that's the reason I take a bit of offense. I have little doubt you didn't mean it as such.

If it makes you feel better, we can ask the commish to undo the trade and toss Smyly into the deal. But that accomplishes the exact same thing. Or he could give me Smyly for the recently dropped Johnson. Again, the exact same result comes before us. Whatever you care to call it but the results are the same.

I again take responsibility for causing this outcry - no responsible league owners would let a 1 for nothing trade go through. I got distracted with some other matters and didn't let you guys have a heads up. I would have been upset and/or had serious questions had I been in your shoes and apologize for causing the initial confusion. But we're being open and upfront about it now. I don't understand the desire to go back and make it one trade so it looks prettier. It's a bit messy this way but the results are all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter. The commissioner said that he wouldn't veto the trade. So unless there are enough people that vote to veto it the trade stands.

End of story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was done to circumvent league rules. You yourself admitted it.

It was an admittedly a poor choice of words, but getting *any* pitcher back from him essentially accomplished the same thing. Whether it was a pitcher he already had or not.

Just curious about what other words would have described what happened? The outcry is more about the pitcher you received not being on his roster at the time the trade went down. And you not being able to pick up that pitcher from using all your moves for the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really matter. The commissioner said that he wouldn't veto the trade. So unless there are enough people that vote to veto it the trade stands.

End of story

I'm just 1 of 8 votes. It takes 4 for a veto, with you and RAZR already voting veto. If 2 of the other 5 posters say veto, then it will be vetoed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for my part I'm just offended anyone would suggest I colluded on a player the caliber of Smyley. If I was ever going to put the effort and ingenuity into collusion it'd be over Miggy or Harper it sure as sh*t wouldn't be over Drew Smyley ;)

Wish to hell EsPN had just forced me to include Rondon or any other player in the deal, none of this would have happened. I had an insane week in real life last week, Rob was away for a few days, we screwed up and should have messaged you all first about the "waiver player to be named later" aspect and made sure everyone knew what was going on, weighed on the best, fairest way to have the deal go through, that's all fair enough.

And I completely agree with Balt's ruling for future deals, obviously there's some trade-related details that needed to be clarified. But again, any trade allows owners to add players beyond the add/drop limit, that's why I never thought about it, it just was what it was. I remember several years ago yahoo had some strange thing where you could finagle DL'd players by postdating moves, I can't remember the details of how it worked at all, but that's how I thought of the waiver claim thing, just a way to make some roster moves. Obviously I didn't understand how guys would feel about that, it seemed so innocuous it never even caused a blip on my radar, okay, now I know.

But so far as collusion, IDK, I just rate that at a whole different level. Just like I personally don't veto anything unless it seems absolutely 100% clear it's below board, I also don't throw out that accusation, or at least word, lightly. There's only two times have witnessed real collusion-- one was the usual, a bad team selling some big names to a good team right near the deadline for BS in return, and one especially nasty league where a small consortium of owners vetoed every single trade but their own to try to block anyone from upgrading their squad. If Rob and I's admitted failure to first mssg the league (and I think almost all of you recognize this was indeed an oversight and not anything deliberate) as something that rates along those lines, well that's how you feel

So in the end, what do you want us to do? If the deal gets vetoed do we resubmit it, or will that be frowned on? If the deal doesn't end up getting vetoed but guys are still going to feel like it's unfair, what then? I don't want any hard feelings or bitterness over something which, if either Rob or I had mssgd the league, could have been figured out to everyone's satisfaction in about 30 seconds.

Freakin' Drew Smyley, only in fantasy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what other language describes what occurred other than collusion. If you have any suggestions feel free to say so. I'm using the word in the way it is defined and an interaction unbeknownst to the rest of the league that allows one person in the trade to circumvent some sort of rule fits the bill. Its a descriptor of the action that occurred that doesn't have to take circumstances into account so whether or not your intention was malicious is an irrelevant question in determining collusion -- its simply a question of process.

In all of the leagues that I've been in up to this point player to be named deals have been frowned upon and have not happened. Standard procedure is that player gets added to the team making the trade and sent with the rest of the package.

As for what to do about it I think it would be more prudent to see if it gets vetoed first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was just a miscommunication and misunderstanding between Rob/Meister and the rest of the league. Should Smyly have been picked up and included in the original trade? Yes, but he just goes in with the package for Stanton. Plus, as Meister said, it's Drew Smyly. It's not like it's Verlander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter who the player was?

One manager had no adds left for the week, so had another manager pick up the player he wanted to be included in the trade. The trade then should have waited for all players involved in the trade to be on the roster. He admitted that they did it to "circumvent" the rules that the ten of us agreed to play by.

Now explain to me why it isn't collusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter who the player was?

One manager had no adds left for the week, so had another manager pick up the player he wanted to be included in the trade. The trade then should have waited for all players involved in the trade to be on the roster. He admitted that they did it to "circumvent" the rules that the ten of us agreed to play by.

Now explain to me why it isn't collusion?

I don't really think of collusion in free leagues. I associate that more in money leagues. Smyly was meant to be part of the Stanton trade. There was just a miscommunication or something between Rob and Meister that led to the trade being accepted by one of them without all the players they wanted in it is what seems like happened. You and RAZR have already voiced your disapproval of the trade, but unless 2 more owners vote to veto it, then it will go through.

Would it be better to you if I just get it vetoed and then they send it through with Rondon or whoever they mentioned in it so it's an actual trade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what other language describes what occurred other than collusion. If you have any suggestions feel free to say so. I'm using the word in the way it is defined and an interaction unbeknownst to the rest of the league that allows one person in the trade to circumvent some sort of rule fits the bill. Its a descriptor of the action that occurred that doesn't have to take circumstances into account so whether or not your intention was malicious is an irrelevant question in determining collusion -- its simply a question of process.

In all of the leagues that I've been in up to this point player to be named deals have been frowned upon and have not happened. Standard procedure is that player gets added to the team making the trade and sent with the rest of the package.

As for what to do about it I think it would be more prudent to see if it gets vetoed first.

Am too tired to get into this anymore tonight, this plus figuring out Matt Cain's ratios which needs a super computer at this point is just too much for this hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice team name change. You realize that Smyly has now become yours for the rest of the season. One of those "unwritten" rules of any league. You are allowed one name change per season. If you change the name to reflect a player on your team that player must remain on the team no matter how crappy he performs.

The only exception is you named your team after Ackley ( I did), and then people are to busy laughing at you for having Ackley on your team to notice when you drop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.