I proposed a trade of P. Pierce and R. Lopez for B. Griffin to Faeries and he accepted.
Below is the conversation that has went on in the message board:
Shotcaller - I don't understand this from Faeries perspective. You're mired in last place, so how do you benefit from this? What do you gain by helping the first place team?
Crimedogg - I won't reply from Faeries prospective. However, just to let everyone know I proposed trades to 3-4 teams involving Pierce where I just went down the top average ranking and found players with the worst FT%. I wasn't specifically targeting trading with any team and didn't consider there place in the league standings when I was making offers.
Jay - Personally agree with Shotcaller there. As much offers ive sent out thru the year (and there have been alot lol), i usually avoid the bottom 3 teams when i send out offers. For a last place team to make a deal with the number 1 team at this point of the year is just so they can help them win is what it looks like.
Faeries - I didn't looked at who I was dealing with. I just took the deal 'cause, despite letting the best player go, I will have better cumulative stats. I'm 30 games behing pace, so having a more apt body than Stuckey is a welcome relief. I'm not sure it can help me back atop the league, but that'll definitively help me fill my stat sheet.
Jay - Come on, let's be real here guys. It doesnt sound realistic for the both of you not to know who youre dealing with. I can understand one of you guys, but both? Sounds more unrealistic from Fairies standpoint because there is absolutely nothing to gain from his perspective. Not only will he not move from last place with this deal, but even if we were to give him Lebron and Durant for nothing in return, it wont help him get anything passed the bottom 3. The deal should be vetoed, and im sure if people were actually still trying (theres about 4 people that arent) this deal def would be.
Faeries - I'm I in the 4 that are not trying ? If so it must only be because of my dismal draft that you state that.... To be completely forthcoming, I must add that CrimeDogg isn't my little sister, I didn't make the deal for his pleasure, I made it, 'cause It gives me a better group after than before. As for the deal itself, I'll compare Griifin to Pierce stats for some 20 games remaining. It gives the criminal ony a slight bump in FG% (he won't catch the team in front of him with only Griffin.) The hit he will take in FT% won't harm him. He'll lost about 2 3s for 20 games, that may cost him a point. 18.6 is the same amount of points that Griffin and Pierce will rack. 40 more rebs may help him get one point. 20 less AST should not matter. 4 STLs w'ont change a thing. In BLK dogg is already first, and the 8 more he should register won't change that more than not having those 8. Finally, he will cath a break of about 8 TO too, those TOs won't explain why he'll have 10 pts in this stat at the end of the year, the additional point in TO could only come if crimedogg make sure to stay a hundred games behind Barfight! number of games. You can see that one for one, Pierce for Griffin isn't travesti, so adding Lopez to the equation, make it, I think, a no-brainer for me, even if it won't help get out of the 12th seed, it'll help my self-esteem. Next year, I'll be at the draft if it takes place during a week end.
Jay - Im sorry, but thats absolutely ridiculous. You said you want to make the deal with the 1st place team so it can help your "self esteem". Seriously? smh
Clearly this trade helps him improve, even if it is slightly. At this point of the year, every point counts especially if youre in 1st place. With this trade he stands to gain 2 pts in REBs and hes currently battling with me in fg% and with hi chi in tos. With Paul Pierce, theres a better chance that he could lose to both of us in both categories than with Blake, and he possibly might not gain those 2 pts in REBs.
Pierce may be hot all of a sudden shooting 50 fg% after he made the trade with me, but he had been shooting around 43% all year, and i certainly expect him to continue that. Like i said, the trade helps him improve, and he wouldnt have made it unless he knew that.
Crimedogg - Obviously I made a trade I thought would improve my team, I don't make trades to get worse. I didn't trade Noah for Pierce and Vucevic to make your team better and I can't believe you did it to make my team better. I assume the debate seems to be if Faeries made his team better.
Crimedogg - It's an interesting debate maybe we should bring it up to the Octagon message board for unbiased 3rd party opinions?
I personally only see 3 scenarios why this trade would be vetoed.
1. Pierce and Lopez for Griffin is such a lopsided trade that nobody would ever consider this trade fair. I don't feel that anybody is arguing that in this case but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Faeries and I are friends and we are working in collusion. I know this isn't the case as I don't know Faeries and I don't recall us ever making a trade before previously.
3. Faeries (being the team in last place) is for some reason angry at the league and is trading away all his good players because he doesn't care anymore. I don't believe this is the case since he appears to be setting a lineup and making roster moves.
It looks like it Jay's and Shotcaller's opinion a trade is against the rules if a first place team trades with a last place team (I assume at this point in the season). I personally hate it when the teams in the bottom of the standings give up and don't try. It kills the integrity of the league and it screws the points totals for the teams at the top. For example, I have 4 pts right now in the points category. If the bottom teams were to give up, I would likely move up in points when I didn't deserve to just because people stopped setting their lineup.
I'll conclude with what is the point of asking managers to stay active if they can't make moves? If Faeries were to cut someone from his roster that somebody else picks up is that against the rules? If he isn't allowed to make roster moves how should he finish out the season?
FacialHairMobstas - You all are free to bring it up on the Octagon message board.
From my perspective, I have to say I agree with Crimedogg here.
The trade, in and of itself, is a fair one. If the trade were inherently lopsided, I would understand managers then wanting to potentially question the motives of the managers involved. But since no one can reasonably claim the trade itself is unfair, no further analysis is needed.
Again, to question why a last place team would trade with a first place makes some sense in the context of an actually unfair trade. To question it, however, in the case of a fair trade -- which surely you all agree this one is -- is tantamount to saying that those in the bottom of the standings have no right to stay active and manage their roster how they wish.
And that's something I just cannot get behind.
Barfight! - I really don't get what all the fuss is about. The trade is fair enough, therefore there is no problem. This idea that top teams shouldn't trade with the cellar dwellers is just plain dumb. Fairies has every right to try and avoid the wooden spoon, and in fact I'd expect him to try and do so.
And I don't believe there's any collision happening here. I know for a fact that crimedog offered up Pierce to more than just Faries. I also know, having deal discussions with Faries, that he isn't just giving up on the season and chucking it in. The guys that are complaining are just being a little bit silly IMO.
My stance on vetoes in this league has been made clear from the start: I'll only veto trades that are grossly unfair or suspected collusion. Would I veto this deal? No. Though Blake has been better as of late, there's only a round or two in value between he and Pierce at most. There's a clear winner here (especially with Robin's value falling off a cliff), but it's not bad enough to veto.
Rules are rules though, and this should be put up for vote: 1.5 (A) Trades not involving the commisioner will be subject to a 3 day trade rejection time. Trades can be vetoed by a vote from 5 of the remaining 10 league managers by either PM or e-mail during the first 2 days of the trade review period. If the commissioner receives 5 or more PM's or e-mails, the trade will be vetoed on the 3rd day. The commissioner may veto a trade that is, in the commissioner's judgment, grossly unfair (a trade that will upset the competitive balance of the league) at any time during this 3 day period, but will abstain otherwise.
E-mail to the non-trading managers has been sent. Please get back to me to as soon as possible with a response as to whether you all think it should be vetoed.
Rounders Block wrote:My stance on vetoes in this league has been made clear from the start: I'll only veto trades that are grossly unfair or suspected collusion. Would I veto this deal? No. Though Blake has been better as of late, there's only a round or two in value between he and Pierce at most. There's a clear winner here (especially with Robin's value falling off a cliff), but it's not bad enough to veto.
Rules are rules though, and this should be put up for vote: 1.5 (A) Trades not involving the commisioner will be subject to a 3 day trade rejection time. Trades can be vetoed by a vote from 5 of the remaining 10 league managers by either PM or e-mail during the first 2 days of the trade review period. If the commissioner receives 5 or more PM's or e-mails, the trade will be vetoed on the 3rd day. The commissioner may veto a trade that is, in the commissioner's judgment, grossly unfair (a trade that will upset the competitive balance of the league) at any time during this 3 day period, but will abstain otherwise.
I'll get in touch with CDoc to set this up.
And this is why there are rules.
To echo Justin's point, I don't see theis deal being collusion based or lopsided at all and thus I wouldn't see the need to veto. No one seems to be arguing that the trade is hugely unfair, they just seem upset that a bottom ranked team is making a deal that makes the top ranked team better (perceived I should say).
I personally don't know the last place team, but I'd give some small props to him for wanting to be competitive and making his team better even if it won't affect the final outcome. I know that when I start to fall out of the playoff hunt I set my lineups, but usually I'm not too interested in making deals or even checking the waiver for players. I think that's what he was saying as far as self esteem.
Also as mentioned, each manager in every trade clearly thinks they get the better or winning advantage in ay trade, hence why they make the trade in the first place. If both teams are getting better from their own perspective isn't that the point of trading? A lot of the comments are, why are you helping the first place team? What do you gain? Etc? He's not helping out the other team, he's making his own better. That's the final answer.
silentjim
Moderator
Posts: 10732
(Past Year: 694)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Dimes this season: 2,807
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.
To add: there may some unwritten etiquette that you don't deal with a bottom-2 or -3 team, but there's no rule about doing it. So the context of the first place team dealing with the last place team only matters if this was suspected collusion, which it isn't. Since it's not collusion the trade needs to be evaluated on merit alone.
silentjim wrote:Also as mentioned, each manager in every trade clearly thinks they get the better or winning advantage in ay trade, hence why they make the trade in the first place. If both teams are getting better from their own perspective isn't that the point of trading? A lot of the comments are, why are you helping the first place team? What do you gain? Etc? He's not helping out the other team, he's making his own better. That's the final answer.
The thing people dont understand is that he is NOT making his own team better, hes making it worse. There is absolutely nothing to gain from Faries perspective, in fact he massively downgrades. The only categories that he can gain in at this point of the year are fg% and steals, both categories that Blake is better at. If he loses Blake for Pierce, theres no question that he will drop 3 points in fg%, since 3 teams are all tied at .465, with him being in front of the 3way tiebreaker in that category.
Hes farrrrr behind in every category that Pierce would help him in, so clearly its extremely suspicious that he would want a player that downgrades his team and improves the first place team. Why are 2 people the only ones that realize that?
silentjim wrote:Also as mentioned, each manager in every trade clearly thinks they get the better or winning advantage in ay trade, hence why they make the trade in the first place. If both teams are getting better from their own perspective isn't that the point of trading? A lot of the comments are, why are you helping the first place team? What do you gain? Etc? He's not helping out the other team, he's making his own better. That's the final answer.
The thing people dont understand is that he is NOT making his own team better, hes making it worse. There is absolutely nothing to gain from Faries perspective, in fact he massively downgrades. The only categories that he can gain in at this point of the year are fg% and steals, both categories that Blake is better at. If he loses Blake for Pierce, theres no question that he will drop 3 points in fg%, since 3 teams are all tied at .465, with him being in front of the 3way tiebreaker in that category.
Hes farrrrr behind in every category that Pierce would help him in, so clearly its extremely suspicious that he would want a player that downgrades his team and improves the first place team. Why are 2 people the only ones that realize that?
I feel you are missing half the trade. He is receiving Lopez who has .542 FG% while cutting Stuckey who has a 388 FG%. He is also gaining more steals total considering he discussed he is on the low end of GP and is the kind of situation where he would rather receive 2 players while only giving up 1.
Are you claiming collusion and we are cheating together? If not, I really don't see your argument.
I don't have a problem with you trying to get a trade vetoed. I do have a problem if you questioning my integrity and accusing me of cheating with no basis.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Hockey
by samo » Mon May 16, 2011 3:01 am 
