fawkes_mulder

2017 Commissioner / League Rules / League Drama

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, dmac88 said:

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

 

Team A trades: 

 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

 

Team B trades: 

 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

 

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

 

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

 

That trade is easily even enough to pass, IMO.  But, I'm not sure what your question is.  You have a clearly defined veto policy, so let the owners vote and decide it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dmac88 said:

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

 

Team A trades: 

 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

 

Team B trades: 

 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

 

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

 

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

 

I mean I rather have the Seager side, but I dont think its awful. If the guy trading away Seager has a good SS, seems fine. If he has no SS, seems very dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dmac88 said:

Looking for some neutral opinions on a league matter. We have veto spelled out to apply for "lopsided trades" and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

Team A trades: 

Corey Seager: ranked ~45 in our league

Hanley Ramirez: ranked ~400 in our league

Team B trades: 

Ryan Zimmerman: ~30

Michael Conforto: ~200 (was ~80-100 before injured, owner says)

One contingent says: this trade is lopsided and shouldn't go through. Team B is in first place and that owner thinks he's possibly being treated unfairly because of that.

Other contingent says: rules spell out vetoes should only be for obviously lopsided trades and otherwise owners should be allowed to run their teams as they please. Preseason rankings don't match up, but Aaron Judge's preseason ranking was ~300.

How on earth is this not a fair trade?  Why does anyone want to veto it?  Why do other owners try to interfere with how another owner manages their team?  I would not be part of a league where this trade was vetoed.  I'd quit on the spot.  We play fantasy baseball because we want to manage teams.  Not bow and scrap before other owners who want to boss us around. 

Yes Seager looks like the better player but so what?  Maybe the other guy needs a good young OFer moving forward or is a Mets homer even who is willing to lose a little to have some FREAKING DAMN FUN owning his team or can replace Seager with someone decent at least but his outfield is mush.  Comforto is NOT chopped liver.  And Hanley had been fish bait this season too whereas Zimmerman is killing it.

You know a funny thing?  In the Bench Coach Forum most trade questions start with "who wins this trade?" Think about it.  Who WINS this trade.  The assumption is that trades have winners and losers and that is a good thing and the person posing the question wants reassurance he is winning or (past tense) has won the trade.  So why are the busy body, stick your nose into someone else's business owners always on their high horse that a trade is uneven.  Especially the one above.

If you think someone in a league is making bad trades look up his record (which you can do on Yahoo at least) and if he is a newbie diplomatically start some emailing about what you think he might do in the future.  Maybe he might learn something and become a better owner.  Or maybe you might learn that he actually has a plan.

2 hours ago, shakestreet said:

what is clear collusion? It just doesn't happen, or more like I have never heard where anybody can deem collusion was a reason why a trade was veto'd. 

 

That is the point.  It RARELY doesn't happen.  And SHOULD never happen.  If it does it is serious and it what the veto was meant for.  Period.  No question marks.  Trading Mike Trout for my proverbial whipping boy, Stephen Drew. 

Otherwise fantasy baseball is about having fun and if some owner isn't perfect at it then so what.  He will learn.  Or not.  Doesn't matter.  It is none of your business.

Again how can anyone get remotely bent out of shape over the trade above.  Sounds like they are all jealous over Team B being in first probably because the owner of the team is a lot smarter than they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

 

That is the point.  It RARELY doesn't happen.  And SHOULD never happen.  If it does it is serious and it what the veto was meant for.  Period.  No question marks.  Trading Mike Trout for my proverbial whipping boy, Stephen Drew. 

 

 

I was confused by your last sentence. Should Mike Trout for Stephen Drew be vetoed without evidence of collusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duke of queens said:

Exactly my point, that's why 99% of trades should go through. If you can't trust your league mates to manage a team than they shouldn't be in the league. But if you want an example of clear collusion. A last place team with nothing to play for sends Max Scherzer, to a team vying for the money, for Zack Wheeler. I have been commish for about 20 years and have vetoed 1 or 2 trades(tough to recall) and one was because the guy was just being a d*ck and tried to trade Bonds for some scrub to piss off the league. Its even tougher in a keeper league when teams try and build for next season, but the commish is not there to tell people how to manage their teams, he/she is simply there to enforce the rules, keep the peace, and try and improve the league in hopes of making it highly competitive.

What rules does a commish actually enforce? The site you play on does all that from what I have seen. The commish selects the rules and the site enforces them

 

As for clear collusion needed to be proved is a nice idea in theory but unless one or the other trading partners is stupid and admits it how is it proven?

 

The example above (Wheeler for Scherzer)  could be a good trade in a dynasty rebuild if the one manager with the rebuild wanted to get younger or just even thought in 3 years time Wheeler would be the better pitcher. Or just doesn't like Nats pitchers. Falls under the idea of his team. He would have been in last for a reason after all

 

In 14 years I have never vetoed a trade mainly because if people needed to win that badly to resort to cheating so it goes. The next year I am gone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

How on earth is this not a fair trade?  Why does anyone want to veto it?  Why do other owners try to interfere with how another owner manages their team?  I would not be part of a league where this trade was vetoed.  I'd quit on the spot.  We play fantasy baseball because we want to manage teams.  Not bow and scrap before other owners who want to boss us around. 

Yes Seager looks like the better player but so what?  Maybe the other guy needs a good young OFer moving forward or is a Mets homer even who is willing to lose a little to have some FREAKING DAMN FUN owning his team or can replace Seager with someone decent at least but his outfield is mush.  Comforto is NOT chopped liver.  And Hanley had been fish bait this season too whereas Zimmerman is killing it.

You know a funny thing?  In the Bench Coach Forum most trade questions start with "who wins this trade?" Think about it.  Who WINS this trade.  The assumption is that trades have winners and losers and that is a good thing and the person posing the question wants reassurance he is winning or (past tense) has won the trade.  So why are the busy body, stick your nose into someone else's business owners always on their high horse that a trade is uneven.  Especially the one above.

If you think someone in a league is making bad trades look up his record (which you can do on Yahoo at least) and if he is a newbie diplomatically start some emailing about what you think he might do in the future.  Maybe he might learn something and become a better owner.  Or maybe you might learn that he actually has a plan.

 

all signs point that the Seager side is the winning hand .. that side is trending upward.

I have no idea what the hell you are calling (ATM) Hanley chop-liver ... his bat has come alive while Zimmerman has regressed.. All you need to do is look at the player rater for the last 30 days....

9 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

and requires 1/3 of the 14-team league to vote against. 

don'cha forget this is there for owners of the league to express what they think of the trade. You would leave the league if it was veto'ed .. they probably tell you good riddance ... take care see-ya-later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to say look at the player rater the last 30 days. One guy is clearly regressed and the other guy is starting to play better.  That could be very easily the other way around in the next 30 days.  Zimmerman for Hanley is pretty even IMO.  I can't even say for sure which I rather have, and I own a lot of Hanley stock all year. Conforto for Seager certainly seems advantage Seager, but I can buy the trade if you OF is scarce and you have a great replacement at SS (not that I would do it). I still think the most important thing to know in this deal is who the guys backup SS is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

How on earth is this not a fair trade?  Why does anyone want to veto it?  Why do other owners try to interfere with how another owner manages their team?  I would not be part of a league where this trade was vetoed.  I'd quit on the spot.  We play fantasy baseball because we want to manage teams.  Not bow and scrap before other owners who want to boss us around. 

Yes Seager looks like the better player but so what?  Maybe the other guy needs a good young OFer moving forward or is a Mets homer even who is willing to lose a little to have some FREAKING DAMN FUN owning his team or can replace Seager with someone decent at least but his outfield is mush.  Comforto is NOT chopped liver.  And Hanley had been fish bait this season too whereas Zimmerman is killing it.

You know a funny thing?  In the Bench Coach Forum most trade questions start with "who wins this trade?" Think about it.  Who WINS this trade.  The assumption is that trades have winners and losers and that is a good thing and the person posing the question wants reassurance he is winning or (past tense) has won the trade.  So why are the busy body, stick your nose into someone else's business owners always on their high horse that a trade is uneven.  Especially the one above.

If you think someone in a league is making bad trades look up his record (which you can do on Yahoo at least) and if he is a newbie diplomatically start some emailing about what you think he might do in the future.  Maybe he might learn something and become a better owner.  Or maybe you might learn that he actually has a plan.

That is the point.  It RARELY doesn't happen.  And SHOULD never happen.  If it does it is serious and it what the veto was meant for.  Period.  No question marks.  Trading Mike Trout for my proverbial whipping boy, Stephen Drew. 

Otherwise fantasy baseball is about having fun and if some owner isn't perfect at it then so what.  He will learn.  Or not.  Doesn't matter.  It is none of your business.

Again how can anyone get remotely bent out of shape over the trade above.  Sounds like they are all jealous over Team B being in first probably because the owner of the team is a lot smarter than they are.

 

Ok then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

What rules does a commish actually enforce? The site you play on does all that from what I have seen. The commish selects the rules and the site enforces them

 

As for clear collusion needed to be proved is a nice idea in theory but unless one or the other trading partners is stupid and admits it how is it proven?

 

The example above (Wheeler for Scherzer)  could be a good trade in a dynasty rebuild if the one manager with the rebuild wanted to get younger or just even thought in 3 years time Wheeler would be the better pitcher. Or just doesn't like Nats pitchers. Falls under the idea of his team. He would have been in last for a reason after all

 

In 14 years I have never vetoed a trade mainly because if people needed to win that badly to resort to cheating so it goes. The next year I am gone

 

Scherzer for Wheeler should be vetoed in every format.  I don't care the reasoning.  You wanna rebuild?  Fine, knock yourself out.  Just do a better job of it than that.

Edited by 89Topps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the only format Wheeler for Scherzer makes sense is if like Scherzer is unkeepable due to contract and Wheeler is super cheap for multiple years. But even then, I agree with @Low and Away, there's probably a much better trade for you somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shakestreet said:

what is clear collusion? It just doesn't happen, or more like I have never heard where anybody can deem collusion was a reason why a trade was veto'd. 

 

 

No collusion. I didn't want to influence any answers when I posted this, but now that a bunch of people have weighed in (appreciate all the viewpoints, for and against) I can say that I'm team B. Absolutely no collusion. I've been in first all year and this is the second trade of mine that's been vetoed. The first one I made, I appealed and it got put through. It's funny because since then I've actually come out on the losing end of that trade lol. Yet I'm still getting my trades ****** with. The commish is a stand up guy, so I think I'm gonna propose going to commish veto for next year since the other guys can't play like adults. One guy in the league changed his team name calling me a "cheater thief" lol. Children I'm playing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

 

That trade is easily even enough to pass, IMO.  But, I'm not sure what your question is.  You have a clearly defined veto policy, so let the owners vote and decide it.  

You're right, the rule is the rule and I'm probably going to have to eat this one. But it's being misapplied to try to keep me down because I'm in first place. The reason I posted it in here was to see if I truly was being objective and get some neutral opinions. I think I'm winning the trade (or else I wouldn't have agreed to it) but I don't think it's a "lopsided trade" as our league rules state a veto is reserved for. Our commish has clarified that the veto is a rule, but it should only be applied for "lopsided trades" (e.g., Pillar for Arenado). Not for "first place guy is improving his team and I don't like that, because I sat on my hands and didn't propose a trade for Seager." I just didn't want to be that guy that's all upset his trades weren't put through without getting an outside perspective. I'm expecting this one won't go through when I appeal it, and then I'll propose going to commish veto for next year since most of the league can't play like men.

Edited by dmac88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

@dmac88 who was his backup SS to Seager?

Galvis. But he has mashers all over his lineup and can afford to trade Seager to strengthen his OF/utility. Has: Starlin, Rendon, Blackmon, LoMo, Carlos Santana, HanRam, Harrison. And is rolling with Dyson and Peralta in the OF. I wouldn't do it, but can see why he thought he'd trade some IF strength for Zimm (he must buy his breakout, I think he's gonna fade) and Conforto (who could very well be a top 80 player like he was until he got hurt).

 

Honestly, not many trades go down in our league. You can see why since guys seem to want everything to be right down the middle.

Edited by dmac88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you when you say you didn't collude, but a guy downgrading his SS from Seager to Galvis isn't trying.  

 

I think this forum recognizes me as a really big Conforto fan, but I would never downgrade to Galvis from Seager to get Conforto in my OF. 

 

You wanted objective opinion. I don't think this guy is thinking his team will be better with that trade. 

 

Whether it's worth vetoing? I dont know what that guy's deal is, but if I was the commish I would ask him. Sounds like a very bad move for his team regardless of "other mashers". He had those mashers already and Seager. 

 

Dyson is #43 overall OF for the year.  And that includes a lot of people who don't play in most peoples lineup as OF, so he's likely top 40.  In a standard league, Dyson has been decent enough.

Edited by brockpapersizer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Low and Away said:

What rules does a commish actually enforce? The site you play on does all that from what I have seen. The commish selects the rules and the site enforces them

 

As for clear collusion needed to be proved is a nice idea in theory but unless one or the other trading partners is stupid and admits it how is it proven?

 

The example above (Wheeler for Scherzer)  could be a good trade in a dynasty rebuild if the one manager with the rebuild wanted to get younger or just even thought in 3 years time Wheeler would be the better pitcher. Or just doesn't like Nats pitchers. Falls under the idea of his team. He would have been in last for a reason after all

 

In 14 years I have never vetoed a trade mainly because if people needed to win that badly to resort to cheating so it goes. The next year I am gone

Enforces those that sites can't handle. Yahoo is not very good for Keeper leagues so we have rules outside of Yahoo that I need to enforce.

 

Clear collusion can never be proven, but as a commish I don't need due process, I just need common sense. It's my league and if you don't like the decision you can leave. I've had 8 teams since beginning and 4 have been on board for no less than 5 years, so my judgement, while questioned sometimes, has never caused someone to leave.

 

You are taking that example literally, I was just merely trying to prove a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

I believe you when you say you didn't collude, but a guy downgrading his SS from Seager to Galvis isn't trying.  

 

I think this forum recognizes me as a really big Conforto fan, but I would never downgrade to Galvis from Seager to get Conforto in my OF. 

 

You wanted objective opinion. I don't think this guy is thinking his team will be better with that trade. 

 

Whether it's worth vetoing? I dont know what that guy's deal is, but if I was the commish I would ask him. Sounds like a very bad move for his team regardless of "other mashers". He had those mashers already and Seager. 

Yeah absolutely, I want an objective opinion and I appreciate it. He took the first offer I gave him, and honestly I was expecting it to be more of a negotiation. He must really hate his OF and really like Conforto. The best OF on the wire is Kepler. So he's probably desperate. I wouldn't do the deal. But I didn't think it was THAT lopsided that it should be vetoed. As others have said, guys have to have the freedom to value their players how they're gonna value them, within reason. The veto is there for obviously lopsided trades, like "wtf" ones. And this one is just a "man, I wouldn't have done that deal" one IMO. It's incentive for the other owners to be out there proposing trades. But getting mad that I'm active and beat them to it, doesn't justify a veto IMO.

Edited by dmac88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dmac88 said:

Yeah absolutely, I want an objective opinion and I appreciate it. He took the first offer I gave him, and honestly I was expecting it to be more of a negotiation. He must really hate his OF and really like Conforto. I wouldn't do the deal. But I didn't think it was THAT lopsided that it should be vetoed. As others have said, guys have to have the freedom to value their players how they're gonna value them, within reason. The veto is there for obviously lopsided trades, like "wtf" ones. And this one is just a "man, I wouldn't have done that deal" one IMO. It's incentive for the other owners to be out there proposing trades. But getting mad that I'm active and beat them to it, doesn't justify a veto IMO.

 

Yeah you did nothing wrong, at all. But if this guy is in last place (or close) and pulling the trigger on a trade quickly that doesn't make sense for him, he's acting in bad faith. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

Yeah you did nothing wrong, at all. But if this guy is in last place (or close) and pulling the trigger on a trade quickly that doesn't make sense for him, he's acting in bad faith. 

He's in 6th out of 14 teams. He didn't make a good call, you're absolutely right about that. But I mean, are we all supposed to just not trade with the guy? As long as we're not obviously taking advantage of him (like the Pillar for Arenado example I gave) the commish can boot him out if he wants. Otherwise, I think it's on the other owners for not being the ones to propose trades. Snooze you lose. I appreciate your perspective though, man.

Edited by dmac88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmac88 said:

He's in 6th out of 14 teams. He didn't make a good call, you're absolutely right about that. But I mean, are we all supposed to just not trade with the guy? As long as we're not obviously taking advantage of him (like the Pillar for Arenado example I gave) the commish can boot him out if he wants. Otherwise, I think it's on the other owners for not being the ones to propose trades. Snooze you lose. I appreciate your perspective though, man.

 

If he's in 6th, im back to on your side though. That matters to me if he has a legit chance to win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brockpapersizer said:

 

If he's in 6th, im back to on your side though. That matters to me if he has a legit chance to win.  

Yeah. I don't know the guy at all. Only his first name, have never spoken with him. If there's any collusion, it's the guy who's all butt hurt over my trades who changed his team name to insult me, rounding up enough people to veto it. The veto happened quick. Trade went through at midnight and was vetoed by 4am. I know three guys in the league (including the commish) and they've been on my side for every trade.

 

I think the solution is to go for commish veto next year. Just wanted to make sure my evaluation was objective before I proposed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dmac88 said:

Yeah. I don't know the guy at all. Only his first name, have never spoken with him. If there's any collusion, it's the guy who's all butt hurt over my trades who changed his team name to insult me, rounding up enough people to veto it. The veto happened quick. Trade went through at midnight and was vetoed by 4am. I know three guys in the league (including the commish) and they've been on my side for every trade.

 

I think the solution is to go for commish veto next year. Just wanted to make sure my evaluation was objective before I proposed that.

Thinking about either system for vetoes has its bad points though. Commish veto you go by his player valuation. Brock as commish and Conforto and Gausman are almost first rounders in value. ?

 

Owner veto of course you veto any trade that makes a team better as why let your competition get stronger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Low and Away said:

Thinking about either system for vetoes has its bad points though. Commish veto you go by his player valuation. Brock as commish and Conforto and Gausman are almost first rounders in value. ?

 

Owner veto of course you veto any trade that makes a team better as why let your competition get stronger

Haha I feel you. There's always a downside. The commish is a stand up guy and his baseball knowledge is really good. I think he'd call it down the middle, and would consult people he trusted. And he's non-interventionist for these things too. So it would have to be something obvious for a veto. I think it's a better option than the current broken system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

@dmac88 who was his backup SS to Seager?

 

You keep bringing that up.  I'll go as far as to say I don't think that should even be a factor.  If someone wants to punt SS, or some other position, that's their choice.  That shouldn't be a factor in deciding to veto or not, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

I believe you when you say you didn't collude, but a guy downgrading his SS from Seager to Galvis isn't trying.  

 

I think this forum recognizes me as a really big Conforto fan, but I would never downgrade to Galvis from Seager to get Conforto in my OF. 

 

You wanted objective opinion. I don't think this guy is thinking his team will be better with that trade. 

 

Whether it's worth vetoing? I dont know what that guy's deal is, but if I was the commish I would ask him. Sounds like a very bad move for his team regardless of "other mashers". He had those mashers already and Seager. 

 

Dyson is #43 overall OF for the year.  And that includes a lot of people who don't play in most peoples lineup as OF, so he's likely top 40.  In a standard league, Dyson has been decent enough.

 

Then you're telling the guy what positions he can punt.  What if it was catcher and he was dealing Posey and just planned to stream catchers?  Or he was trading his only RP?  I look at trades as straight player for player value.  Not my job to tell a team what position they need to fill.

Edited by 89Topps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.