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 silentjim » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:23 pm

CavemanDoctor wrote: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"


;-D This is a good point that has been alluded to, but not flat out said. If fantasy sports were as simple as looking at historical data and extrapolating forward, then there'd be no point in even playing. But situations, skill, work ethic, playing time, coaches, etc change every minute of every day. Making projections being as hard as weather predictions. Blake could start shooting FTs at 80% for the next 20 games and he could also break his leg. We just don't know.

The funny part is, I'm not saying I've had any luck with trading with bottom teams right before the trade deadline, but like others have mentioned I target teams who are looking to improve in certain cats, who are tanking certain cats and could benefit more from a player, and teams who suck and could be looking for a team shakeup/a change that could help in any way.
Image
silentjim
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11493
(Past Year: 735)
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Basketball
Location: Fundamentals are the crutch of the talentless.

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby DVauthrin » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:23 pm

First, I think it's ridiculous to suggest block struggling teams from making their teams better before the league's mandated trade deadline. You had the same opportunity to try and make deals like that to improve your squad, and didn't get it done.

Also, unless it's clear collusion, trades should not be vetoed. Just because things look good on paper for one team over the other doesn't mean that's how it plays out. What if pierce blows up in the celts revitalized playoff run? What if Griffin tweaks his knee again? I've made plenty of trades where I win, and plenty of trades where I lose, across all fantasy leagues.

I might have won a money fantasy football league with my friends if I hadn't traded doug martin and aaron hernandez for steven jackson and desean jackson right before martin had his breakout game vs the Vikings. But that's the risk you take sometimes.
DVauthrin
Basketball Scribe
Basketball Scribe

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6342
(Past Year: 163)
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby dcdoorknob » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:28 pm

Not in the league, obv.

See no reason for a veto at all.
dcdoorknob
High School Hoopster
High School Hoopster

Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 340
(Past Year: 122)
Joined: 19 Aug 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jackie hayes » Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:30 pm

CavemanDoctor wrote:
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.


Wait...what? "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." That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm just saying that a trade should be considered in the context of the actual teams, with the actual standings, involved. If a team can reasonably (not "confidently") expect to improve from a trade, I don't veto. I simply ask if there is a conceivable path forward, not just looking at one exact projection.

I'm in distant last place in fg%, and I resigned myself to punting it a while back. What sense would it make for me to make a trade that hurts myself (even slightly) in other categories to improve (even by a lot) in fg%? Even if the trade were fair overall value, it would clearly hurt my team.
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 7:00 pm

jackie hayes wrote:
CavemanDoctor wrote:
jackie hayes wrote:
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.


Wait...what? "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." That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm just saying that a trade should be considered in the context of the actual teams, with the actual standings, involved. If a team can reasonably (not "confidently") expect to improve from a trade, I don't veto. I simply ask if there is a conceivable path forward, not just looking at one exact projection.

I'm in distant last place in fg%, and I resigned myself to punting it a while back. What sense would it make for me to make a trade that hurts myself (even slightly) in other categories to improve (even by a lot) in fg%? Even if the trade were fair overall value, it would clearly hurt my team.


Not just you. Look at jay's post above. He is up in arms, in part, because Faeries is going to lose a guaranteed 1 point in FG%. This is not even accounting for things like who the manager will decide to play from now on, whether they'll use the player in another trade, who they'll add/drop, etc. There are so many possibilities. Even talking about these things shows how slippery the slope is: you are now implicitly suggesting a system where managers do not have the unfettered right to manage their own teams how they see fit. It goes without saying that I am speaking of this in the context of a fair trade, which again, no one has denied this is.
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 7:36 pm

CavemanDoctor wrote:Not just you. Look at jay's post above. He is up in arms, in part, because Faeries is going to lose a guaranteed 1 point in FG%.


No, im upset for the fact that hes slightly downgrading, and for his reasons for making this deal.

First of all, its not just 1 point in fg%, its 2, possibly 3. If hes trying to improve, fg% is the biggest category he stands to lose in. His fg% is at .466, and one team is at .466 and another at .469, so he can certainly catch them too, but that wont happen after this trade. He wont lose a point in blocks as the team thats behind him is 20 blocks behind and has played 20 more games, so hes in no danger of losing blocks. FT% is the only category he will gain in.

BUT my point is that everyone seems to believe for some reason that Fairies is actually all of a sudden attempting to improve his team. If that was the case, why has he had Stuckey and Al Harrington in the lineup this month when there were much, much better options on the waiver wire? Guys like Webster, Terry, Dorrell Wright, F/C's like Speights, heck even spot starts from Kanter or Ed Davis wouldve been much, much better. Not to mention why not actively seek trades early in the season and ignore trade offers and tell people youre not much of a trader if youre trying to improve?

The point is it certainly seems he hasnt tried to improve much all season, hasnt attempted to trade all season, but now he wants to make a deal with the 1st place team because, in his own words, "it helps his self-esteem"....lol makes no sense whatsoever.
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 74)
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jackie hayes » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:02 pm

CavemanDoctor wrote:
jackie hayes wrote:
CavemanDoctor wrote:
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.


Wait...what? "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." That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm just saying that a trade should be considered in the context of the actual teams, with the actual standings, involved. If a team can reasonably (not "confidently") expect to improve from a trade, I don't veto. I simply ask if there is a conceivable path forward, not just looking at one exact projection.

I'm in distant last place in fg%, and I resigned myself to punting it a while back. What sense would it make for me to make a trade that hurts myself (even slightly) in other categories to improve (even by a lot) in fg%? Even if the trade were fair overall value, it would clearly hurt my team.


Not just you. Look at jay's post above. He is up in arms, in part, because Faeries is going to lose a guaranteed 1 point in FG%. This is not even accounting for things like who the manager will decide to play from now on, whether they'll use the player in another trade, who they'll add/drop, etc. There are so many possibilities. Even talking about these things shows how slippery the slope is: you are now implicitly suggesting a system where managers do not have the unfettered right to manage their own teams how they see fit. It goes without saying that I am speaking of this in the context of a fair trade, which again, no one has denied this is.


"Unfettered" means no veto power, whatsoever. As for saying this only applies to "fair" trades -- I don't see how one can say a trade is fair in some general, absolute sense, unless it depends on some projection in terms of category value. If it's impossible to look at categories, then "fair" is meaningless.

Your argument seems to be, If a trade is fair in some 'average' sense, then it goes through, no questions asked. Disagree completely, but I'm leaving this argument. Not convinced, not voting for a veto, tired of this.
jackie hayes
Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach


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

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby jay_00 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:18 pm

Rounders Block wrote: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.


There's 2 teams that are competitively trying to pursue the number 1 spot, and we both feel we have the chance to win. Now a last place team who hasn't tried to improve much all year long suddenly decides to pull a trade with the first place team in which he doesn't stand to gain anything out of, but improves the first place team, isn't that technically upsetting the competitive balance of the league? :-S
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 74)
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
Home Cafe: Basketball

Re: Veto Trade Debate

Postby CavemanDoctor » Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:24 pm

jay_00 wrote:
CavemanDoctor wrote:Not just you. Look at jay's post above. He is up in arms, in part, because Faeries is going to lose a guaranteed 1 point in FG%.


No, im upset for the fact that hes slightly downgrading, and for his reasons for making this deal.

First of all, its not just 1 point in fg%, its 2, possibly 3. If hes trying to improve, fg% is the biggest category he stands to lose in. His fg% is at .466, and one team is at .466 and another at .469, so he can certainly catch them too, but that wont happen after this trade. He wont lose a point in blocks as the team thats behind him is 20 blocks behind and has played 20 more games, so hes in no danger of losing blocks. FT% is the only category he will gain in.

BUT my point is that everyone seems to believe for some reason that Fairies is actually all of a sudden attempting to improve his team. If that was the case, why has he had Stuckey and Al Harrington in the lineup this month when there were much, much better options on the waiver wire? Guys like Webster, Terry, Dorrell Wright, F/C's like Speights, heck even spot starts from Kanter or Ed Davis wouldve been much, much better. Not to mention why not actively seek trades early in the season and ignore trade offers and tell people youre not much of a trader if youre trying to improve?

The point is it certainly seems he hasnt tried to improve much all season, hasnt attempted to trade all season, but now he wants to make a deal with the 1st place team because, in his own words, "it helps his self-esteem"....lol makes no sense whatsoever.


Why don't you run his team for him? Honestly, I mean, why not run all of our teams? Look at the micro-managing level of discussion we're having now. Why did he play Stuckey and not Ed Davis? Really? This is what we're resorting to?

And for what it's worth, he made a trade in January.

This is my last post on this cause, frankly, this is getting ridiculous.
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 8:40 pm

CavemanDoctor wrote:Why don't you run his team for him? Honestly, I mean, why not run all of our teams? Look at the micro-managing level of discussion we're having now. Why did he play Stuckey and not Ed Davis? Really? This is what we're resorting to?


Stuckeys avgs this month at 3.4 ppg and 2.8 apg in 20 mpg rank him wayyy past 200 and im micro managing? Harrington hasnt averaged more than 12 mins this month, but im micro managing? :-S

CavemanDoctor wrote:And for what it's worth, he made a trade in January.

A dead last team made 1 trade way back in January...hooray. Still doesnt mean hes tried to improve because clearly he hasnt.
jay_00
College Captain
College Captain

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 449
(Past Year: 74)
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 4:58 hours
(and 97 days)


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