2007-2013 Archived Posts - Fantasy Basketball Cafe 2014
Fantasy Basketball Cafe


Return to FBC Octagon

2007-2013 Archived Posts

Moderators: jphanned, samo

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jay_00 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:58 pm

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? :-S
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 58)
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby Crimedogg32 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:16 pm

jay_00 wrote:
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? :-S


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.
FBC Octagon Champion - 2010-2011
Crimedogg32
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2311
(Past Year: 30)
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Octagon

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jay_00 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:14 am

Crimedogg32 wrote: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.


Im not missing half the trade at all. You mentioned Stuckey when it comes to fg%, but somehow you say he gains more steals total since youre giving him 2 for 1. Well if you include the fact that hes cutting Stuckey for Lopez, he loses more steals total. On top of that, hes going from Blake's 18.6 ppg on 55 fg% to Pierce's 18.6 ppg on 42.5 fg%. Thats a HUGE downgrade, we all can agree on that.

He's then cutting Stuckey for Lopez, and they both only average around 11ppg. HOWEVER, Stuckey isnt even getting playing time this month, so he doesnt effect Blake's and the rest of his teams fg%. Lopez might shoot 54 %, but clearly that wont be enough to offset Pierce's fg% or equal what he was getting from Blake & Stuckey combined. There's absolutely no question he will downgrade 3 points in fg% considering how close teams are in that category.

Not for 1 second do i believe that youre cheating, although if it was me i would have never made the deal as i do not trade with the bottom dwellers at this point of the season. I look at it as common courtesy and respect for the rest of the league to do that.

BUT my problem is why would Fairies make this deal? Without question he only stands to downgrade from this deal, and it only improves your team. Not to mention this is the same guy who told me back in November that he isnt much of a trader (i have the email saved) when i was offering him some deals. He's only made 1 trade all season way back in early January, so if hes not much of a trader, and hes downgrading while improving the 1st place team, why is he making this deal at this point of the year? It justs doesnt make sense.
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 58)
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby Crimedogg32 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:41 am

jay_00 wrote:
Crimedogg32 wrote: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.


Im not missing half the trade at all. You mentioned Stuckey when it comes to fg%, but somehow you say he gains more steals total since youre giving him 2 for 1. Well if you include the fact that hes cutting Stuckey for Lopez, he loses more steals total. On top of that, hes going from Blake's 18.6 ppg on 55 fg% to Pierce's 18.6 ppg on 42.5 fg%. Thats a HUGE downgrade, we all can agree on that.

He's then cutting Stuckey for Lopez, and they both only average around 11ppg. HOWEVER, Stuckey isnt even getting playing time this month, so he doesnt effect Blake's and the rest of his teams fg%. Lopez might shoot 54 %, but clearly that wont be enough to offset Pierce's fg% or equal what he was getting from Blake & Stuckey combined. There's absolutely no question he will downgrade 3 points in fg% considering how close teams are in that category.

Not for 1 second do i believe that youre cheating, although if it was me i would have never made the deal as i do not trade with the bottom dwellers at this point of the season. I look at it as common courtesy and respect for the rest of the league to do that.

BUT my problem is why would Fairies make this deal? Without question he only stands to downgrade from this deal, and it only improves your team. Not to mention this is the same guy who told me back in November that he isnt much of a trader (i have the email saved) when i was offering him some deals. He's only made 1 trade all season way back in early January, so if hes not much of a trader, and hes downgrading while improving the 1st place team, why is he making this deal at this point of the year? It justs doesnt make sense.


No hard feelings. I guess I can't answer why he is making the trade he would have to reply although it is obviously just an opinion on who will get a better deal going forward. It's not impossible to believe either Griffin or Pierce will br top 5 players the last 20 games of the season. If no cheating is believed to be involved, it just appears a difference of opinion in how a last place team should play out the season and if there is an unwritten rule on whom teams should trade with and I don't think any argument either of us will make will change that opinion.
FBC Octagon Champion - 2010-2011
Crimedogg32
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2311
(Past Year: 30)
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Octagon

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jay_00 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:30 am

Actually i made a mistake, there isnt a 3 way tie for fg% at .465. He only stands to lose 1 point in that category, but he will certainly lose that 1 point since hes going from 18.6 ppg on 55% to 42.5%.
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 58)
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jackie hayes » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:33 am

Just to repeat what I posted on the board -- ft% is important here, that's where the trade is most positive for PF. He's at .764, teams above at .766 and .771.

Also, you can't just look at Stuckey for fg% and steals comps. If I'm cutting my worst player as a result of a trade, it's usually someone who's rarely making the lineup, anyway. If Lopez replaces one of the dead weights that actually plays (say, Harrington), it looks better for those cats.
jackie hayes
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach


Posts: 803
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby silentjim » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:58 am

Honestly from an outside perspective you guys are thinking way too hard on this in my opinion. Ignore that you're in the league. Ignore the standings of the teams involved. Just look at the isolated situation. Is the trade fair or not and was it collusion? It appears it wasn't collusion so was the trade fair or not just base on the players being moved?

I can't imagine having to justify every trade I've ever made and how and by what margin it would increase in every category and whether I had the chance to make up ground or not and etc. Why is this trade different? Keep in mind that hurting your chances of making the playoffs or winning in the playoffs isn't a good reason to veto an even trade. I think the timing and the standings are swaying normal opinions and creating a little bit of bias here.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11516
(Past Year: 632)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jackie hayes » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:42 am

silentjim wrote:Honestly from an outside perspective you guys are thinking way too hard on this in my opinion. Ignore that you're in the league. Ignore the standings of the teams involved. Just look at the isolated situation. Is the trade fair or not and was it collusion? It appears it wasn't collusion so was the trade fair or not just base on the players being moved?

I can't imagine having to justify every trade I've ever made and how and by what margin it would increase in every category and whether I had the chance to make up ground or not and etc. Why is this trade different? Keep in mind that hurting your chances of making the playoffs or winning in the playoffs isn't a good reason to veto an even trade. I think the timing and the standings are swaying normal opinions and creating a little bit of bias here.


My take -- even if a trade is fair value in an average sense, it has zero value for an owner if it doesn't help him move up in the standings. So I think it's fair to look at what a person might reasonably expect to gain (and lose) from a trade. And for a particular trade with particular teams, there's no way to do that without looking at individual cats/standings.

Put another way, I'd be okay with a poor value trade, as long as the team is clearly expecting to gain points. Eg, trading an solid center for a poor fg% guy who jacks up tons of 3s can work in you are already punting fg%, in the middle of a 3pm bunching, and without much hope of loss or gain in rebounds and blocks. 'Overall' value just isn't terribly important this late in the season.
jackie hayes
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach


Posts: 803
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby CavemanDoctor » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:29 am

jackie hayes wrote:
silentjim wrote:Honestly from an outside perspective you guys are thinking way too hard on this in my opinion. Ignore that you're in the league. Ignore the standings of the teams involved. Just look at the isolated situation. Is the trade fair or not and was it collusion? It appears it wasn't collusion so was the trade fair or not just base on the players being moved?

I can't imagine having to justify every trade I've ever made and how and by what margin it would increase in every category and whether I had the chance to make up ground or not and etc. Why is this trade different? Keep in mind that hurting your chances of making the playoffs or winning in the playoffs isn't a good reason to veto an even trade. I think the timing and the standings are swaying normal opinions and creating a little bit of bias here.


My take -- even if a trade is fair value in an average sense, it has zero value for an owner if it doesn't help him move up in the standings. So I think it's fair to look at what a person might reasonably expect to gain (and lose) from a trade. And for a particular trade with particular teams, there's no way to do that without looking at individual cats/standings.

Put another way, I'd be okay with a poor value trade, as long as the team is clearly expecting to gain points. Eg, trading an solid center for a poor fg% guy who jacks up tons of 3s can work in you are already punting fg%, in the middle of a 3pm bunching, and without much hope of loss or gain in rebounds and blocks. 'Overall' value just isn't terribly important this late in the season.


This is a very slippery slope and runs the risk of letting league mandates dictate how managers run their own teams.

Fantasy sports is a speculative numbers game. To sit there and confidently say "Well Team X is going to gain exactly 3.5 points in the following categories and lose 5.5 points in these other categories as a result of this trade, and therefore the trade should be vetoed" seems very presumptuous and downright arrogant to me.

Was the trade, on its face, fair? So far no one -- not even the most vehement opposers of the trade -- has said it isn't. That should really be the end of the discussion.

To dwell on minutiae like "well the manager assured me 5 months ago that he wasn't much of a trader and now he's making a trade" etc. is really grasping at straws.
Image
CavemanDoctor
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1192
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jay_00 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:31 pm

CavemanDoctor wrote:To dwell on minutiae like "well the manager assured me 5 months ago that he wasn't much of a trader and now he's making a trade" etc. is really grasping at straws.


I dont see how thats grasping at straws. Hes never made a big effort to improve especially early on in the season when i offered him deals which at this point im very glad he turned down as he wouldve clearly got the better end of it. So he doesnt want to trade, not putting real effort into improving (hes had Al Harrington and Stuckey in his lineup for the last 2 weeks for christ sakes! theres better players on the waiver wire), but now all of a sudden is a right time for him to trade with a 1st place team. Yup, that makes absolute total sense i guess lol.

Im done arguing my points. Apparently i just have no clue what people are seeing here, but whatever...your league, your rules.
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 58)
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

PreviousNext

Return to FBC Octagon

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues



Get Ready...
The 2014 NBA season starts in 17:08 hours
(and 68 days)


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