Discussion in 'Fantasy Sports Central' started by Mossberg, Sep 6, 2013.
Notice how The fish in the picture is getting the worst of it. Just saying…
There's a hidden meaning. Although your wife is hitting you on the back of the head, I wish it was me...
Funny whale wannabe, But aren't fish supposed to be inactive at this time of night?
Inactive fish join the menu.......
No disrespect to either of the managers, but this early season trade made little sense to me. It's only 2 weeks into the season. Yes, some players are off to a slow start. Since none of the players are injured, I went by the original numbers Yahoo used for projected draft pick. Junior's players involved in the trade had a total of 197. Mikhail's players totaled 125. +72 for Junior Welker is a solid WR2, behind Demaryius Thomas in Denver. Greg Jennings isn't what he use to be, plus he has Ponder throwing to him instead of Rodgers. I don't understand giving up two RB's originally ranked a total of 69 (including #4 Spiller) for two WR's ranked a total of 152. The QB part of the trade I considered a crap-shoot.
But, you threatened to change the rules earlier today, didn't you...?
Now that's a great explanation. There could just as easily be a great rebuttal to detteam's reasoning, but I think that is the starting point to discussing why a trade was blocked. It's definitely a matter of philosophy, but I believe the default should be to accept a trade. If there is a veto, there should be a reason. It is reasonable that the would-be trade partners can request a reason for why a trade was blocked. Just my opinion.
Yeah, this Afternoon, I explained this to Bill Laimbeer... 1. Junior sends Qb Karpernick (50) 7th round to Mikhail for qb Romo (69). 9th round. The word was that almost all sites said romo was largely under rated but a few said Kaepernick was underrated. But still Mikhail gains somewhat getting Kaepernick. 2. Junior sends w.r. 13th round Jennings (99) to Mikhail for Bernard RB (101) 13 th round. Running backs are a much rarer commodity than receivers plus a couple days ago Bernard ashes star potential. A solid gain for junior witha possible huge gain. But the big one Is Junior sends 8 th round welker WR (63) to Mikhail for (4) spiller. FIFTH player drafted overall first round and a running back to beat. I told Laimbeer Mikhail could gain a kings ransom for spiller. Huge huge huge gain for junior. I didnt check it out closely until this morning when word of the veto got out. So IF I voted against it... No offense to Mikhil but if he is (insert appropriate adjective) to do it that is his problem. Kudos jr. Throw it against the wall enough and one time it will stick. Too bad Mikhail. But my concern would be just handing junior the trophy again... Not the first time he got a first round running back for nothing and subsequently won the trophy. But that's another even more interesting can of worms, lol. So my concern playing devils advocate would be the rest of the league losing out not because JR was savvy enough to get free agents before the rest but because he got over on another member by wheeling and dealing. ( the kids a good player. He can win without that stuff. That's how I imagine the vetoes went down. So if we are going to make an issue of members vetoing a trade ( which if it was MY trade that I strongly truly believed it was, I would be super pissed, then we can do that. Again, we heard two views of people who may or may not have vetoed. So where are the parties involved? Hell... The more I think about it and examine it and think about the repercussions. Anyhow , if we use the" one guy got ripped off manner once we need to be consistent. There is a lot of subjectivity to trades and Im not even sure if I've ever vetoed. Maybe once. Not sure. Do you know that someone who was not seen on this forum stopped speaking to me permanently because I refused to veto a trade junior made a couple years ago ?another one here not speaking to me because I didn't agree with the person that our trade should be nullified? And another who I was actually offline friends with still upset because two years ago I chose to trade with jammer and it him after he failed to get back to means I had already given my word to jammer ( tried emailing him today... Getting worried about him). Look people. It's a game and we all get emotional now and then, I remember lots of stuff too in fantasy sports... But pitch your bitch for a couple of days and move the hell on. In a couple days this will pass but somebody ( me this time,?) is going to say to hell with it.
My God are you wordy TB. But thorough and I agree with most. The veto thing is a yahoo default. A lot of that commishes ignore. And once set should stay set. But if everyone is told of changes it should still be fair. The fact that Beer is ticked that no one would let his SON make a trade kinda worries me. As for Jr.'s team needs he needed RBs and had WRs to trade. I need the reverse. Lets not forget 5 years ago I had 5 extra QBs and no one would trade with me. So lets not panic because Jr. just got brushed back by some high and tight heat. I play hard ball !
Why would anyone want to play fantasy with guys like this? Let people trade for their favorite player or whatever without interfering as long as it is not blatant cheating. Unless it is something like Adrian Peterson for a kicker, stop ruining the game for others.
When I saw a trade I thought was unfair, I just made fun of BillLaimbeer the person making the deal. Turns out that the other guy got the better of the deal.
Like what, exactly, Mogilny? People who disagree with you? Others want to have fun too but they view it differently than you and think it could have repurcussions to lessen their enjoyment. Remember, the button pushers ( or those arguing for their rights) followed the rules. It is others that are doing the arguing. And perhaps also with very good reasons. But we don't know that yet, do we? At least 3 of six, half the non traders took issue with the trade. We are not talking one malcontent here.
Yep, it's not against the rules so why not start abusing it...
I'm done. The decision was made in accordance with the Yahoo and league rules. This never should have been brought to the table unless those involved in the trade wanted to state their case, change some minds and resubmit it. Time to move on.
Would it be sportsmanlike of me to bench Mccoy, Jackson and Henerey tonight so that my opponent still feels like he has a chance to win when Sunday rolls around? It would only delay his pain... Im hoping for a whopping 60 tonight. If I don't get 50 tonight, I'm going to be dissappointed. I'm supposed to get 41 between the three. But if that happens I may be in a little bit of trouble. Less than that and I think Im dead. The Chiefs have a good defense. I just want the Eagles to win. l would gladly trade my fantasy victory last week to change the results of the Eagles game against San Diego. My pro team comes first. Unlike some people whose name I will not mention. ** cough Detteam cough traitor cough cough**
Well, another trade in the hopper. Will the league "protect" theeTFD in the same manner that it did for Mikhail?
Personally I agree but I think it's a philosophical thing. There's at least a rational explanation there for vetoing a trade. Bigger picture, there should be a discussion (maybe best had before the season starts) to come to agreement on what the veto should or should not be used for. To me the explanations presented are a little nitpicky, but I can see that some reasoning behind it. It comes down to what kind of league people want to have. Allowing vetoes to be used this way stifles trade activity. If that's what people want then so be it. But it's no different than the pundits declaring afterwards that Memphis "gave away" Pau Gasol for nothing and being proven wrong when Marc Gasol turned into one of the best big men in the game. Anyway, I thought I'd chime in because I'm an impartial observer. Love you guys!
Concuss is +23 using the same evaluating method used to veto the prior trade. If you want to compare the trades, divide the differentials by the Yahoo projected pick total of the manager giving away projected value. In this trade, Moogs is giving up 15% of projected value. In the case of the vetoed trade, Bloodbath was giving up 57%...roughly 4 times the current trade. Huge difference. Plus, each party is trading a stud. No veto from me on this one. Here's a question for you: Why did you threaten to go all dictator? I'm not demanding an answer, but I would like one. PM me if you prefer
I was wondering what's happened to my trade. That just tells you how much attention I've been paying - just not enough time for all things.
Separate names with a comma.