I was able to add Pavlovic to bokzg's team and Pietrus to jaytizy's team. So, that has been done. The remaining player not in the database relative to our draft is Earl Boykins for MeShawn. bokzg and jaytizy, your respective player was added to your roster for Fri, Oct 5. Let me know if that creates a problem for you in regard to wanting to pick up a player off waivers. Thanks!
Somehow I've completely missed this discussion until just now, which may also explain why I've neglected to set my lineup for the past two days (reason for both being work). It seems like it's a moot discussion at this point since the trade has already been vetoed, but I guess I could throw in a few thoughts.
Personally, I've never been a fan of vetoing trades except in extraneous situations. Situations that fit that description in my opinion, are instances of collusion, an extreme disparity in experience between the managers and the exploitation of that disparity, or some serious mistake in fact (i.e. trading for Brand without knowing that he was out for almost the whole season). Aside from these situations, I am always against vetoing.
I believe that any deal that includes two competent managers who have a full understanding of what they're giving up and what they're getting should go through. The reason for this is that no one really ever knows what's going to happen in fantasy basketball. I've seen some trades that looked HORRIBLE at the time they took place, but ended up being favor in the "loser" of the trade after a month or season had passed. This could be because of sheer luck, some great gut instinct, or just some knowledge or understanding that that person had that no one else did. Whichever it is, the bottom line is that one never knows what the implications of a trade are going to be.
In this case, as hard as it may be to believe, I did hesitate at first to accept the trade. Like Yilun, I was considering the long term, as well as the relative health of the players involved. I like the team I have now, but obviously my chances to win this year would be improved by this trade as long as everyone stays healthy. But then there is where the other factors come in. Nash is getting up there in years, and has actually been showing signs of his age this season as evidenced in the reports that he has multiple injuries, in addition to the ones he's had before, which have been affecting his shot. Amare experienced some more health issues early on in the season, reminding many people that despite his great season last year, he is still a guy who had some MAJOR work done on a part of a body that gets a lot of use in basketball. Ray, like Nash, is getting along in years and has seen his role decrease quite a bit at Boston. You also have to think that the PT of the big 3 will have to be reduced at some point if the Celtics are really targetting the Finals. All three of these guys are on teams aiming for the top and will likely be sat/rested at the first sign of injury during the regular season since the teams are looking towards the postseason.
The guys I'd be giving up are rising stars who have shown their value to their teams both in reality and in fantasy. Deron has improved significantly yet again this season, and there's no reason to think that he won't continue to do so throughout this season and into the next few. DHow has also shown significant improvement yet again in his game, with stretches where his FT% has been acceptable giving hope that it's an area that can improve in the near future. Even without that improvement, he can be a top 3 player if certain categories are tanked. Ellis started slow, but has been playing great basketball since. These are guys who are all essential pieces for their teams, all of which are rising teams who are also improving each year. Not only are they young, but they've also been relatively injury-free thus far.
The bottom line is that there is a strategy being employed by Yilun by making this trade. He is fully aware of all of the implications of the trade for both teams, and has decided to go with it for strategic reasons. This is the best kind of trade, one where both sides are getting exactly what they want and no one is being misled. No one is taking advantage of anyone else, no one is lying or tricking the other.
That leaves the only reason for vetoing this trade being the "imbalancing the league" argument, however I don't believe it to be a good reason for a veto. There are only two relevant parties involved in a trade (sometimes 3 in more elaborate ones), and those are the managers of the teams involved. Trade proposals aren't made with the rest of the league in mind, and so the validity of trades shouldn't be affected by the effect on the rest of the league. Are we really going to set a precedent where the welfare of the entire league has to be considered whenever two managers are making trades? Should every trade also consider the other 10 managers' competitive welfare as well? Should a manager really have to care whether a trade that he feels will make his team more competitive will negatively impact the ability of every other team to compete? It's my opinion that the answer is no. If a manager thinks a trade is going to improve his team and help him win more, then that manager should be able to make that trade. He shouldn't be bound by how other managers think their own competitiveness will be affected by a trade. That goes against the very idea of competition and would serve to discourage trading, something that is rare enough as is. If the only trades that could go through are the ones that 12 managers agree are fair and won't negatively impact their ability to compete to a significant extent, then there would be little to no trading except for the minor trading of role players.
If this policy of vetoing is really set, then vetoes will go out anytime someone tries to be creative with a trade, or tries to take a chance to shake things up for their team. How else could such trades take place unless you know something that no one else does? How could such a trade go through if the only person who thought it would work was you? How could you possibly pull off a "secret strategy" if the only way it could be accomplished was by letting everyone else in on it?
I'm not going to ask that the vetoed trade to be allowed through, but I think the league should carefully consider what it has done by vetoing it. There was a precedent set here that may end up having larger implication than you all realize. This kind of policy is the kind that maintains the status quo since it is driven by popular opinion. Trading has effectively been curtailed by the norm, and I think it's sad if we restrict fantasy basketball in such a way. As it stands, I'm not willing to accept the modified trade proposal Yilun has made me because I think I'm giving up too much now, which means you guys have effectively shut down a trade that both parties thought were going to help their teams.
Having been a commissioner who has been in this exact same position, I must say that I understand exactly where Turmoil and Thrill are coming from. As league managers, they have the responsibility of making sure that the league stays competitive and yet fair. However, I also must agree with Bokzg that unless there is obvious collusion involved, i.e. I'm deliberately loading his team with talent in effort to propel him to victory, then a veto does seem kind of extreme. Both managers knew what they were doing and what they were getting in the deal. In short, Bokzg was giving up youth and upside for aging yet capable fantasy players to make a run for the title this year (kinda like what Miami did the year they won the title...look at them now). The players I got would have helped me stay competitive in this league for years to come (kinda like what Portland did 2 years ago and look at them now). It's a tradeoff that should be purely based on the decisions and gut instincts made by the managers and nothing else.
Along those lines regarding the power imbalance, it is also fairly reasonable to say that although there may be an imbalance now while Nash and Allen are still young. However, as they both wind down their careers, whatever "imbalance" bokzg's team did have would inevitably and naturally be corrected as both Nash and Allen fade while Deron and D12 peak. I'm reminded of a trade in a keeper league that I was involved in 05-06 season. A manager gave up Shaq/Ben Wallace for D12/Chandler/Dalembert. At the time, people were screaming bloody murder in the league because Ben and Shaq were obviously still elite centers. However, a little less than 2 years now, that manager who had the foresight to make this trade is sitting pretty with arguably 2 top 5 centers and 1 top 10 center in the league, while Shaq and Ben have little to no trade value at this point in any keeper league. I simply just didn't want to be that guy who held onto Shaq and Ben for one season too long.
All in all, I hope this next trade involving Amare for D12 doesn't get vetoed. There is far less fantasy implication involving this trade because there is only 1 player involved on both sides. Both are arguably young and have upside. I just happen to think that D12 fits into the strategy that I want to implement next year better than Amare does. It is a personnel change that I feel like is best for the direction of my team next year.
But needless to say, I am very happy to see that I'm involved in a league that cared enough to even object to a trade. I believe it is a testament to the dedication and legtimacy of this H2H league. I'm planning on being around for awhile and I hope I can contribute something positive as well. I didn't mean to stir up any negative emotions or conflicts by doing this trade. Again, it was merely for the benefit of what I thought would help my team out in the long run. I have nothing but respect the fact that Thrill and Turmoil are competent commissioners who are willing to put their foot down on a certain important decision and I hope these events only renew the competitive drive within the managers of this league.
*rocking the new blamer sig*
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The confines of reality are too grand for my imaginative capacity
Well, I think you both make good arguments, but I believe it is valid that the trade be (or was) rejected based on the values and implications known today. Much like in the NBA where there are restrictions that salaries be matched in a trade in order to not imbalance the league, for fantasy purposes, it is the league's responsibility that imbalances do not occur as a result of trades, albeit between two clearly competent and respected managers.
Neither of you have denied the imbalance that would occur (at least, I don't believe you did). And I wouldn't anticipate that you would deny that. You have made valid arguments surrounding the rewards and risks of the trades, but the fact still remains, it's a lopsided deal with implications that imbalance the league this season and likely at least next season (i.e. that imbalance would be bokzg's dominance).
I'm not confident the Howard/Stoudemire deal will pass (can't speak for the entire league). Personally, I can at least buy the argument that given some H2H strategies, Howard has early 2nd round value to a specific manager's strategy (the problem, of course is that overall Howard still only has 4th round value, while Amare has 1st round value). If the deal does pass, just be advised that I would probably frown upon a subsequent deal between the two of you (i.e. a Deron for Nash, or an Allen for Ellis straight-up deal). And I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I am trying to be up front. One lopsided deal (which Howard/Stoudemire is lopsided) might get by. But 2 or 3 deals is going to create an issue. It's just the way it is. And it goes back to league imbalance and that trades between managers should at least attempt to be fair as it pertains to overall league implications (just like in the NBA with matching salaries).
Anyway, I wish you both the best the rest of the season.
Thrill has said it far better than I ever will so I'm not going to even bother. But if that trade had of gone through or if this new one does then another precedent is formed, one where everyone must partner up with another manager, where one trades for the now and the other trades for the future, because there is no way that anyone else could manage to keep up let alone have a chance to win either now or in the future if they were not to do something similar.
Now maybe thats the way the league needs to go where planning and dealing are more important than picking up a player that has just had 3 good games in a row. And if the majority of owners wants that then I am all for it. But as I am just terrible at trades at the best of times I sure as hell hope its not;-)
Don't get me wrong guys I can see where both of you are coming from and if I was either of you I would be feeling a little ripped off too now. But I would also want to step back and take a good look at things. As in did I win based on my own skill and basketball knowledge or taking advantage of trade. Coming from a manager who recently got screwed out of a championship by a expert in another league who made a dubious trade, I know how I would feel if I was to do the same to someone else that had put in just as much hard work.
Its an interesting debate either way and your right the fact that these things are coming up shows the depth and quality of all managers involved. I dont know if now is the time to talk about it or later on in the season as maybe we need to all sit down and have a chat about which direction the league is to go in the future.
Anyways they are the ramblings of a fellow manager and certainly not the rulings of a co-commish. I am interested to hear from all managers just to find out where we go from here. Maybe we should put a halt to trading for now though?
I believe there is a big difference between pulling a trade for strategic purposes and trying out different things vs pulling a trade just for the sake of pulling a trade. Whether Amare will remain a first rounder for years to come or whether D12 still be cemented at a 4th round value for years to come are all objective. What others may conceive to be flaws about D12 I may consider as strengths for the team I'm trying to build, etc.
In any case, there are no future trades in works between Bokzg and me. The fact that you may seem to think that I will do something as dubious as trade Allen for Ellis and then Nash for Deron 1v1 seems to be a slight on my morale principles as a manager. I know for a fact that that this league is made of classy cafe members who are smart, capable fantasy managers. I would never assume that the fellow managers in this league would be gullible or stupid enough to not see what's going on if that were to happen. At the same time, nor do I expect you guys to think that Bokzg and I are classless enough to try to "sneak" something like that by you guys. I feel like I have to spill every single piece and shred of what I am thinking to legitamize my reasonings behind these moves so that my trades won't be viewed as "misguided" and "unwarranted". Please trust that I'm not new to fantasy and I am more than capable of making the right decisions, no matter how "unobvious" they are at the current moment. But since I was not successfully able to move Ray Allen in this deal, I was going to move him again in a separate deal with a separate team. Of course, by having to explain and reveal this, I have yet stifled 3 more options of a possible trade.
As far as I am concerned, Bokzg said it best when he mentioned that the league has effectively curtailed any future negotiations between me and Bokzg that even remotely deal with more than 2 players because of all of the implications that were left on the floor regarding the power imbalance issues. It's not so much that we aren't capable of making a legit deal....it's moreso that we have already been handcuffed by the amount of objection voiced over how "good" these trades will make Bokzg's team. It's almost as if we're hearing the argument as "Yilun and Bokzg shouldn't make this trade. It's not so much that this trade is unfair....it's just that for all intent and purposes, if this trade goes through....there's just no way that any of us can win this league this year." While I understand where you are coming from, I'm sure you also understand the frustrations that ensue when a trade that I feel would help my team is stopped because of how it might effect other teams.
In short, I am tanking FT% and TO's next season as part of my strategy that I'm deciding to use. According to BBM, D12 is ranked #1 while Amare is ranked #13 with those 2 cats taken out of the equation. Relative to my team, D12 is far and above more valuable than Amare as far as I'm concerned. If anything, the way I will use D12 will probably be more effective and potent than the way Amare will be used if he were to remain on my team. Based on this, I'm not sure how this trade can be vetoed. And to put a halt on all future trades as a result of this is well.....just think....if you were just denied a trade that you felt would have helped you in your keeper team and then have your ability to trade be vetoed altogether....not sure how you would feel about that but I guess just give it some thought
*edit* -- just as some food for thought: D12 cumulatively has a higher FG%, more points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks than Amare (Amare missed 3 games due to a balky knee). Ironically, the only 2 categories that D12 is deficient in is FT% and TO's (2 cats that I'm planning on tanking next year afterall)
*rocking the new blamer sig*
(Past Year: 7)
Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The confines of reality are too grand for my imaginative capacity
I think we're arguing two different arguments, which is leading us in circles since everyone is making very good points. I think my main problem with the trade isn't the strategy, its what is being given up for that strategy. Currently Howard is ranked number 1 without TOs and FT%, but I would guarantee if we had redraft right now and someone employed the tanking FT% and TO, they would not draft Howard first. Why? Just because you're tanking a cat (or two for that matter) doesn't mean everyone else is, which means Howard though extremely valuable to you, can be had in later rounds and you can draft on value and build your tanking team better, or someone else who still fits the strategy (
Other examples: Okafor is ranked 40th without TOs and FT% (cumulative), but again his 9 cat value is 104th. And of course there are a ton others when you remove 2 of the 9 cats.
It honestly seems like you're giving up way too much to follow a strategy and by doing so are selling yourself way short on top of it. Why not target Tyrus Thomas and or Nene as well in the current deal?
Then you take all of that and do it two more times.
(Past Year: 564)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.