Year 4 Info Here - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to Bonanza Keeper

Year 4 Info Here

Moderators: geodbear, RedHopeful, silentjim

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby Yilun » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:34 am

silentjim wrote: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.


I see where the opposing argument is coming from as well. I agree that at first glance, I'm giving up a bit much in effort to obtain the talent that I seeked. However, I suppose it's all objective based on the gut instincts of each respective manager and their teams. Again, it's also taking into consideration the broader perspective of the impacts of this trade both short term and long term (where Ray and Nash's career's are near their ends and Deron/D12's are just beginning to peak). Afterall, the age-factor is definitely a key dynamic that non-keeper leagues do not share. Would you veto this trade 2 years from now when Ray is on the verge of retiring and Nash begins the Gary Payton descent? I certainly would in a heartbeat.

In any case, if, for argument's sake, we all agreed that the first one was too lobsided....would you also agree that Amare for D12 is downright, flat out, vetoable as well?
Image
*rocking the new blamer sig*
Yilun
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3276
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The confines of reality are too grand for my imaginative capacity

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby silentjim » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:57 am

Yilun wrote:In any case, if, for argument's sake, we all agreed that the first one was too lobsided....would you also agree that Amare for D12 is downright, flat out, vetoable as well?


That's tough. Now that the situation has happened, its hard for me to think of the situation as a single deal and not look back at the whole. To be honest though, if a few days ago, a trade of Amare for Howard straight up was made, I think I would veto it by itself, but I can't tell if its unbiased are not. Like I said if you acquired one more borderline player I can understand your thought process, but straight up, why would you take the kind of loss in overall value?

If I was tanking 2 or more categories lets say, points and boards, then other players vault to the top as well. Grant Hill is ranked 10, Calderon 11, Terry 12, Brewer 16, Fisher 21, Harris 24 and so on. Yao Ming and Lebron James however drop to 47 and 48 respectively. So, would you allow a trade of my Yao Ming (ranked 14th overall cumulative to Amare's 11 )for anyone of those players?

Obviously this analogy is a little different since its not exact, but it does show how easily you can misconstrue value. Adding on to it, the fact that its a keeper league makes it even that much harder.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11486
(Past Year: 794)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby bleedtheblack » Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:30 am

Just wanted to give my two cents. Everyone has pretty much summed up the issue at length. I didn't veto the first trade and wouldn't if it came up again. I respect everyone's thoughts on the issue, I just could not come up with a cogent argument for a veto. Would the trade have gone through if a significantly weaker team was getting the best end of the deal?? Good luck to everyone.
Image
bleedtheblack
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 669
Joined: 9 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby bokzg » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:42 am

Turmoil wrote: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.


How is utilizing a trade to obtain a competitive advantage not using one's skill and basketball knowledge? How is my conceding of future value for present value, and Yilun's for the reverse not a skillful move made based upon our experience and knowledge of fantasy basketball? Perhaps Yilun sees something with his team that he doesn't like and is willing to take a hit in present value to ensure future value? Perhaps I'm willing to do what the Miami Heat did with sacrificing the future to win a championship now? How can these decisions based upon careful consideration and basketball experience be considered as less skillful or less based on basketball knowledge than any other trade? Every trade is essentially the same thing, two managers who are getting something they want from the other. Each side parts with something valuable to the other party that they are willing to let go of, while getting back something they value higher than the other person in return. How did our trade scenario differ from that very basic premise?

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 don't believe I ever admitted that this trade would imbalance the league, only that it's an issue that I recognize has been brought forth by others. It's a mistaken perception in my opinion, as this is, as I've stated above, very simply a trade just like any other. The only difference between this trade and any other is that the managers who are not involved feel that their ability to compete will be impaired to a significant degree. Is that really a valid reason to prevent a trade? Should moves really be prevented because it may improve one team to an extent that they become perceived as "too good" by other managers? Should we now start prevent the #1 and #2 teams from picking up very valuable players? If one manager drops Brand, and he is subsequently picked up by the #1 team who also happens to have top waiver priority, should we prevent that pickup since it could arguably "imbalance the league this season and likely at least next season (i.e. that imbalance would be the #1 team's dominance)? Obviously there are differences from picking up a player off the WW and making a trade, but the basic principles are still there. Why should a team be unable to complete a transaction that would help them win just because they're already doing well and would become perceived as "too good" by everyone else?

Would this be an issue if the last place team pulled off a trade that improved them to a great degree? Would a trade between two mid-placed teams accepted a trade where one was giving up way too much, based upon a strategy that only he believed in and everyone else thought was crazy? Again, are we going to force every manager to think the way the majority does in order for him to be able to pull off a creative deal?

The salary cap analogy doesn't work very well either. Teams can and have worked around it in the past to get loaded teams (i.e. Lakers getting Malone and Payton for pennies on the dollar), but the league didn't allow the rest of the GMs in the league to veto the trade because they felt it threatened their own teams' abilities to compete. The KG trade to Boston is arguably an incredibly unfair trade when looked at on paper, but it was still allowed to go through. There was more to these trades than what was on paper, and the same is true with my trade with Yilun. McHale could have players with much better present value for KG, but he chose to go with a trade that targeted the future because that was the direction the team was going. Why should Yilun be prevented from doing the same?

silentjim wrote: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


I'm sorry but your guarantee doesn't make the statement true. I have seen leagues where people take players way above their "overall value" just because they fit their team strategy better. I've seen DHow taken in a Cafe league draft in the 3rd round based off of his production last season, I don't see why it's so unlikely that he would be taken in the 1st round next season with the year DHow is having now. Some people may believe that managers should still try to draft players that they value way above their overall value later to get more value out of the pick, but I saw a draft where a player missed out on DHow precisely because they presumed that he would fall to them at a certain point. If Yilun knows where he wants to go and is pretty sure that he'll be able to pull it off (it's easier to know if a strategy will work post-draft than pre-draft since you already have many of the pieces in your possession), then it would be foolish to gamble and end up losing an important part of his strategy based upon his best guess as to how long other people will pass on him or whether another person will employ the same 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.


Same argument above applies to Okafor as it does to DHow or any other players who are particular strong when punting categories.

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?


How much he is giving up and getting in return is for HIM to decide, not for the rest of us. Why must a manager's strategic moves meet with the majority's approval? If the only way Yilun will be allowed to pull off a move is to explain it beforehand to other managers (i.e. his OPPONENTS), doesn't that place him at a HUGE strategic disadvantage? How is he going to sneak up on anyone with a strategy if he has to make sure that everyone agrees with it first before he can pull it off?

While I have my own biases as well, I can't help but feel that this trade would not have been vetoed if it had been explained as well as it has by Yilun, but my team had been in 9th-12th place. Whether it's true or not, I can't help but feel this is a move made by the rest of the managers looking out for their own self-interests and covering their own asses. I have allowed trades to go through in the past that have made a team seem unbeatable, even applauding that manager's ability to pull it off, so long as he did it without lying to/deceiving/taking advantage of/etc. the other manager. Often those teams were still defeated later on by an event or occurrence in the NBA that no one else saw coming (i.e. injury/trade/etc.).

What I hate about this veto is that the vetoing managers are basically telling Yilun that his strategy is wrong and that they won't allow him to pull it off because they disagree with it, and are telling me that I can't take advantage of the circumstances that Yilun and I find ourselves in that happens to provide me with a competitive advantage simply because it would make my team too strong. How else are we to compete if we aren't allowed to seize opportunities and capitalize on them to our benefit?

The vetoing managers are forcing Yilun to think like them, to compete like them, and forcing him to do things the way they do them. They're forcing Yilun to value players by how they value them, basically forcing him to beat them at their own game. Yilun should be able to compete however he wants to, particularly since his strategy has some very good thought and consideration behind it. Everything he has said makes sense, and yet they're still going to prevent a trade that he thinks is great simply because they don't. They can say that the it's only because the trade makes the league imbalanced, but they only perceive it as imbalanced because they don't think Yilun is getting "enough" (again, measured by their own perceptions and not his) and because I'm getting "too much" in return for "too little" (once again, measured by their own perceptions and not the trading managers).

The vetoing managers are also telling me how much I'm allowed to improve my team in a trade. This trade is apparently veotable because it makes my team so good that it will imbalance the league. Okay, but where are we going to draw the line? How good will we allow a team to get before it's considered imbalanced? If I go on a 5-week streak of 8-1 or 9-0 victories, will I then be disallowed from making a trade that gives me a moderate increase in player value? Am I allowed to only get "good" but not "very good"? How about "kinda good"? "Sorta good"? Should we come up with a numbered scale then? "You're allowed to reach level 10, but level 12.... imbalanced and we'll have to prevent the move." If so, who gets to decide on the allowable level of improvement? Will we only be allowed to get as good as the rest of the league allows? That seems to go against the very idea of competition in my eyes.

P.S. If this veto stands, I'm going to be very upset if another trade ever passes where one guy is getting a significant increase in present player value. If this veto stands, I will be very upset if the calculated player values of the the players on both sides of a trade differ in anything more than a minor extent. If we're going to ignore factors outside of the majority's opinion of perceived present value in this case, I fully expect that to hold true for EVERY other trade in this league. It's one thing for a BS veto to go through, it's a whole other for it to be used selectively in an inconsistent fashion.
Image
bokzg
Head Coach
Head Coach

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2076
(Past Year: 117)
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby The Thrill » Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:37 pm

Whew, gone for one day and lots happens! 8-o :-) Good stuff. I'm glad everyone feels comfortable discussing this. It's not an easy topic. And, unfortunately, I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer. This is why we have league voting in a league with very knowledgable and respected members. I hope you all continue to enjoy the league. :-)

Yilun wrote: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.


Sorry, no slight intended. :-/ Neither you, nor bozkg are classless in my book. As commish though, I wanted to be upfront with my opinion. As you've been around fantasy sports as well, I'm sure you've seen even even classy people do things that "make you go, hmmm." I didn't want to be insulting, just up front. :-/

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. :-°


And you still can. I don't think you've revealed anything that would restrict you from dealing away Ray Allen for good value (and/or value that meets your strategy). Like you said, we're all competent and intelligent managers here. You're going to get what you're going to get for Ray Allen and I don't believe you've revealed anything that this league couldn't figure out on it's own anyway.

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.


It is an unfair trade based on historical data and what is known today and the implications it has on the league today. And you have to... you must, give consideration to the overall league when making a deal. That's how things like collective bargaining agreements, and salary matching in trades etc come about in sports. We don't have collective bargaining agreements in fantasy sports. So, we're left to individually determine the appropriateness of a deal on a case-by-case basis. So, IMO, in fantasy sports, a deal absolutely must take into consideration the entire league. And it has to be on the basis of the league settings. Especially when you're talking about the magnitude of the deal that was made.

Yilun wrote:Afterall, the age-factor is definitely a key dynamic that non-keeper leagues do not share. Would you veto this trade 2 years from now when Ray is on the verge of retiring and Nash begins the Gary Payton descent? I certainly would in a heartbeat.


But the deal isn't made 2 years from now. It's made today. And as a an owner of Ray Allen today, you have a responsibility to the league to get reasonable value for him today. Not some schlub 6th rounder from the hometown team.... :-b Ok, now I'm just pokin' fun at you. Hope you take that in stride. O:-) Seriously though, to me, there's a materiality level when making a deal that needs to be taken into consideration. In a league where the league members vote on acceptance of deals, that materiality level is individual to each manager's opinion. As such, you're bound to have differing opinions on the materiality level. And there is no right answer. There's simply league vote. And if 4 out of 12 managers have the same opinion that the materiality level of a deal was breached, the trade gets vetoed.

Yilun wrote:In any case, if, for argument's sake, we all agreed that the first one was too lobsided....would you also agree that Amare for D12 is downright, flat out, vetoable as well?


It is lopsided. However, it is not vetoable in my book because a materiality level, and overall league implications, has not been breached.

bleedtheblack wrote:Would the trade have gone through if a significantly weaker team was getting the best end of the deal??


Thanks for the comments bleedtheblack. :-) And this is a very tough one IMO. But, in the end, bozkg's existing team doesn't have bearing on the decision. The imbalance is caused not by his existing team, but by the fact that based on the league settings, 3 first rounders are being dealt for players who are clearly not first round material under our overall league settings. The overall BBM variance on the deal was near a full 1.00. Materiality was breached IMO. Now, had Yilun made three separate deals in which he was giving up 0.33 in value to each manager, I honestly would not have a problem with that (as evidenced by the fact that I'm not going to personally veto the Howard/Amare deal). But the fact that the benefits of Yilun's sales/deals were going to one single manager created an issue, and created an imbalance in the league.

bokzg wrote:How did our trade scenario differ from that very basic premise?


This relates to the materiality breach that I mentioned in a reply to Yilun. The trade made was simply too largely in favor of one manager. Bless you for being that manager. Great job negotiating. ;-D And I applaud you for the deal, but the league had to take an overall league implication look at the deal.

[quote = The only difference between this trade and any other is that the managers who are not involved feel that their ability to compete will be impaired to a significant degree. Is that really a valid reason to prevent a trade?[/quote]

Yes, IMO. (see materialty above).

bokzg wrote:Should moves really be prevented because it may improve one team to an extent that they become perceived as "too good" by other managers?


You were receiving 3 players who have first round value for quarters on the dollar. As I mentioned in bleedtheblack's comment, it wasn't your existing team that lead to the end result of a veto in my book. League imbalance was created because you were receiving far too much the better end of the deal.

bozkg wrote:Should we now start prevent the #1 and #2 teams from picking up very valuable players? If one manager drops Brand, and he is subsequently picked up by the #1 team who also happens to have top waiver priority, should we prevent that pickup since it could arguably "imbalance the league this season and likely at least next season (i.e. that imbalance would be the #1 team's dominance)? Obviously there are differences from picking up a player off the WW and making a trade, but the basic principles are still there. Why should a team be unable to complete a transaction that would help them win just because they're already doing well and would become perceived as "too good" by everyone else?


I disagree that this pertains. Waiver wire management is part of the game. If a team, any team, retains their waiver rights waiting for the right moment, God bless 'em. And we have a can't cut list that restricts a team from cutting too valuable of a player. That can't cut list, essentially, establishes materiality from an add/drop/waiver perspective.

bokzg wrote:The salary cap analogy doesn't work very well either. Teams can and have worked around it in the past to get loaded teams (i.e. Lakers getting Malone and Payton for pennies on the dollar), but the league didn't allow the rest of the GMs in the league to veto the trade because they felt it threatened their own teams' abilities to compete. The KG trade to Boston is arguably an incredibly unfair trade when looked at on paper, but it was still allowed to go through. There was more to these trades than what was on paper, and the same is true with my trade with Yilun. McHale could have players with much better present value for KG, but he chose to go with a trade that targeted the future because that was the direction the team was going. Why should Yilun be prevented from doing the same?


Well, true, we don't have salaries to go by here, but we do have BBM value and value as it pertains to the league overall. You are bringing up the exception (Malone and Payton), not the norm. And a Malone/Payton scenario would be more a redraft discussion than a trade. :-? Now, the KG to Boston trade had to match on paper. And it did. The Yilun-bozkg trade must match on paper (or, come close from a materiality perspective as determined by voting managers). And, IMO (and the opinion of a few other managers - as evidenced by the veto), it doesn't even come close with the information we have to work with today.

How much he is giving up and getting in return is for HIM to decide, not for the rest of us. Why must a manager's strategic moves meet with the majority's approval? If the only way Yilun will be allowed to pull off a move is to explain it beforehand to other managers (i.e. his OPPONENTS), doesn't that place him at a HUGE strategic disadvantage? How is he going to sneak up on anyone with a strategy if he has to make sure that everyone agrees with it first before he can pull it off?


I disagree. For competitive balance, it's up to us to decide as well. His strategy doesn't need our approval, but his trades must. Again, he's trading 3 first rounders (based on our league's settings) for something that doesn't even come close to that value... the benefits of which all go to one single manager. Competitive imbalance is created. And it's so far imbalanced that, unfortunately, the league had to so, "no."

What I hate about this veto is that the vetoing managers are basically telling Yilun that his strategy is wrong and that they won't allow him to pull it off because they disagree with it, and are telling me that I can't take advantage of the circumstances that Yilun and I find ourselves in that happens to provide me with a competitive advantage simply because it would make my team too strong. How else are we to compete if we aren't allowed to seize opportunities and capitalize on them to our benefit?


I think you stole some of those quotes from George Steinbrenner himself. ;-7 ;-) Seriously though, we're not telling anyone that their strategy is wrong. From an individual trade perspective, strategies are all well and good, but if the overall deal is so out-of-whack and imbalanced, the league needs to step up and say something. And it did.

They can say that the it's only because the trade makes the league imbalanced, but they only perceive it as imbalanced because they don't think Yilun is getting "enough" (again, measured by their own perceptions and not his) and because I'm getting "too much" in return for "too little" (once again, measured by their own perceptions and not the trading managers).


Perceived? It's based on evidence we know today, based on our overall league settings. And it's why we have league voting. The league votes not only with themselves in mind, but the overall league in mind as well.

P.S. If this veto stands, I'm going to be very upset if another trade ever passes where one guy is getting a significant increase in present player value. If this veto stands, I will be very upset if the calculated player values of the the players on both sides of a trade differ in anything more than a minor extent. If we're going to ignore factors outside of the majority's opinion of perceived present value in this case, I fully expect that to hold true for EVERY other trade in this league. It's one thing for a BS veto to go through, it's a whole other for it to be used selectively in an inconsistent fashion.


Well, like I said. It's an individual materiality issue as determined by each voting manager in the league. There's bound to be inconsistency because the materialty level of deals differs, situations and timing of deals differ, etc. It happens. The world isn't black and white and, I suspect, neither is the voting nature of managers. I'm sorry if, in the future, you'll be upset if the league doesn't veto something you perceive to be material and vetoable. Given the quality and experience of our managers, I'm confident each voting members is fair and uses their best judgement. I hope you'll continue to find the league enjoyable. :-)
The Thrill
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9989
(Past Year: 268)
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: At the line

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby ggs » Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:08 pm

^very well said, all of it.

really this is a tradeoff between a deal that is fair for both teams but under the current circumstances (and the type of imbalance it creates in the league) this is not possible to approve at the moment. who knows, try it again a few months later and it might pass by no problem. i don't like to veto unless there is collusion and i stand by that, but i understand why a veto here might have been necessary.
ggs
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8367
(Past Year: 152)
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The Great White North

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby bokzg » Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:10 pm

Nice response indeed (no sarcasm intended :) ), but I still feel that the precedent being set by this veto is a bad one. Like I said before, where do we draw the line? To what extent will we allow the non-trading majority of managers to prevent a trade simply because they feel a trade will weaken one team and improve the other to too great an extent? Make no mistake, that's really what's at issue when we're talking about creating imbalance in the league. The fear is that one team has weakened itself more than it should, while the other is improved more than it should, thereby giving an "unfair" advantage to the improved team. If a majority of the managers acknowledged that Yilun was improving his team and was getting good value with the players he was getting and also acknowledged that I was improving my team to a reasonable level with the players I was getting, then there would be no imbalance issue.

As you said, you believe I'm getting Yilun's players for quarters on the dollar. However, you have to understand that's based off of your perceived value. Yes, it's backed by BM.com rankings and historical analysis, but it's ignoring team needs and Yilun's goal of wanting to improve his chances to win for the next 5 yrs as opposed to sticking with what he believes will be very short-term value. It's also ignoring the keeper factor which makes Nash and Ray much less attractive since they're both getting along in years and have nagging injuries. It's further ignoring the fact that this league is using the Yahoo H2H playoff system, which tends to disfavor star players on teams who are going to the playoffs, particularly those who are older and have nagging injuries.

I don't want to get into an argument regarding the merits of Yilun's strategy or the reasons for my reluctance to trade for Nash and Ray, but the bottom line is that both sides have carefully considered the implications of the trade and have good reasons for what they're doing. I didn't drive up what Yilun was giving by arguing with him, I quite simply didn't want to change anything about my team since I like it so much and it's doing so well, and wouldn't give up the players Yilun was targeting for who he was offering until that particular mix of players came up. I honestly wasn't shocked when he sent me that offer, nor did I think I was getting a huge steal. I really do think that I'm giving up a LOT of future value, to the extent where I think an analogy to how the Heat sacrificed the subsequent 3-4 yrs in exchange for one championship is appropriate, because I agree with Yilun that Nash and Ray will have significantly less trade value in a year or two, while their production will begin to slide. I don't believe that Yilun is able to trade Nash or Ray for their actual value in a keeper league, and think that he should be able to aim to trade them for the players who he values the highest in the league if he wants to.

I think most of the people who have vetoed the trade here acknowledge that there's pretty good reasoning behind the trade on both sides, and that it's a pretty hard call to make. Personally I think that with trades, there should be a policy in leaning in favor of approving any trade that has no collusion, deception, etc. We should have a policy of encouraging trading and creative strategies, and doing that means allowing trading and creative strategies so long as they're not clearly and indisputably bad for the league as a whole. The fact that everyone isn't talking about this veto as if it was a foregone conclusion by itself should make the trade allowable. The fact that everyone has acknowledged that Yilun has made some very good arguments in support of his strategy should automatically allow it through. It makes little sense to accept his strategy but then to reject the method by which he attempts to implement it.

Let's also not forget that the voting system is itself inherently flawed because it's a vote by the opponents of the trading parties, which inserts a large bias of self-interest into every veto vote in general. I'm just skeptical enough to not believe that every veto is made while considering only the good of the league and the voter themselves. That factor, itself, should support the policy allowing trades barring a very clear case of abuse or unfairness.

Anyway, I'm not fighting for the trade to be allowed now. What's done is done, and I would prefer that everyone in the league be happy with everything, even if I disagree with the rationale behind the veto. I still believe that it's a dangerous precedent that has been set here, because it will allow a manager's opponents to restrict their ability to implement a strategy, even if he has fully explained it and has come up with good reasoning for it. In a few months, Nash or Ray may get hurt or decide to sit out games (which is very likely considering their respective health and ages and the goals of their teams), and then Yilun will be stuck in a scenario that he had found a solution for but had been prevented from achieving. At that point, the rest of the league will only be able to say "sorry" or "oops", but that won't make Yilun feel much better.
Image
bokzg
Head Coach
Head Coach

CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2076
(Past Year: 117)
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Vetoed trade

Postby Yilun » Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:01 pm

First of all, I'd like to say I'm really appreciative towards Thrill and Turmoil for taking the time out and giving us well thought-out and articulated responses to our questions and concerns. I think it's great as players in a league to see that the commissioners take a firm and positive stance on certain issues. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that you guys didn't over-react on your initial instincts over the lob-sided trade and continued to have patience in this discussion. Believe me, I've been in leagues where this kinda stuff has really got out of hand before ;-)

All in all, the more I think about it, the more I am OK with the initial veto I guess. Although I still feel like I knew what I was doing, I understand that you guys made the decision with the overall best interest of the league in mind. I think the one thing that is ummeasurable is the level of "self-interest" involved when that decision was made as well. I think it's hard to deny that there wasn't some notion of trying to keep the league balanced so that each manager's own team stood a chance. But hey, then again, I would have probably done the same thing if I was in your position because I guess that's just how the cookie crumbles and it's only human nature being fantasy managers in a competitive league. I hold no hard feelings or grudges and I'm glad that we were all comfortable enough to have the nice discussion regarding this issue.

Personally, I do hope that the D12/Amare trade passes. And as a side note, on future transactions, I will try to learn from these events that have transpired and develop trades that will take into consideration my own team's well-being but also the league's interest as a whole. ;-D I also hope that the initial veto didn't set a negative precedent like Bokzg mentioned and that future trades/vetoes will have no impact or bearing on this last one.

bokzg wrote:Let's also not forget that the voting system is itself inherently flawed because it's a vote by the opponents of the trading parties, which inserts a large bias of self-interest into every veto vote in general. I'm just skeptical enough to not believe that every veto is made while considering only the good of the league and the voter themselves. That factor, itself, should support the policy allowing trades barring a very clear case of abuse or unfairness.


As I mentioned above, I also see the inherent flaw in the veto system as well. But I suppose that lies in how much we trust the people that we are competing with. As I said before, I feel like I'm in a great league with classy and knowledgable fantasy cafe members. Therefore, I suppose it's no big deal to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are doing their best to make respectable decisions. I hope that these events only strengthen the threads that hold this league together and makes it what it is.

bokzg wrote:Anyway, I'm not fighting for the trade to be allowed now. What's done is done, and I would prefer that everyone in the league be happy with everything, even if I disagree with the rationale behind the veto. I still believe that it's a dangerous precedent that has been set here, because it will allow a manager's opponents to restrict their ability to implement a strategy, even if he has fully explained it and has come up with good reasoning for it. In a few months, Nash or Ray may get hurt or decide to sit out games (which is very likely considering their respective health and ages and the goals of their teams), and then Yilun will be stuck in a scenario that he had found a solution for but had been prevented from achieving. At that point, the rest of the league will only be able to say "sorry" or "oops", but that won't make Yilun feel much better.


You just had to go and say my worst nightmare :-o ;-) But I guess that's fantasy basketball. If anything, I sure hope that Deron/D12/Ellis have great careers so that at least I will look good a year from now (or even a few months from now) for having the foresight to try to steal them when they were still pups :-b
Image
*rocking the new blamer sig*
Yilun
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3276
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The confines of reality are too grand for my imaginative capacity

I won my first week!

Postby ggs » Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:58 pm

My first weekly win, wow. seriously, who wants to pick apart at this team? I'm looking for keepers at this point.
ggs
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8367
(Past Year: 152)
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: The Great White North

Re: I won my first week!

Postby The Thrill » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:01 pm

Congratulations! ;-D

Now, who are you looking to give away? :-D
The Thrill
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9989
(Past Year: 268)
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: At the line

PreviousNext

Return to Bonanza Keeper

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues




  • Fantasy Basketball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact