|
|
Post by nathanoake on Jan 23, 2013 13:25:05 GMT -5
Just trying to be proactive and save some others some hassle....
But, I am very supportive of the format used for trades in Ghost's leagues, where both managers post their justification for the trade, along with the specifics.
I am not a fan of vetoing trades....but I think if we include this, it would go a long way.
The NY/JAX trade might look a little sketchy to some....but I think it is fair to let each manager post their reasonings (or require them to even)
Especially with the salary cap piece that is so important in this league....a lot of managers obviously want to lose the cap so they might give up quality players for less than quality players or speculative picks in return. This might not look like it makes sense....but obviously it does to those involved.
Please let us into your thought process....
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozzie Newsome on Jan 23, 2013 13:35:13 GMT -5
Just trying to be proactive and save some others some hassle.... But, I am very supportive of the format used for trades in Ghost's leagues, where both managers post their justification for the trade, along with the specifics. I am not a fan of vetoing trades....but I think if we include this, it would go a long way. The NY/JAX trade might look a little sketchy to some....but I think it is fair to let each manager post their reasonings (or require them to even) Especially with the salary cap piece that is so important in this league....a lot of managers obviously want to lose the cap so they might give up quality players for less than quality players or speculative picks in return. This might not look like it makes sense....but obviously it does to those involved. Please let us into your thought process.... I am with you on Ghost's format. If you notice, each of my trades I have posted a lil something with why I accept. We shouldn't have to reveal "our hand" but I'm used to it now, so would like to see it done in this league also. |
|
|
|
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Jan 23, 2013 13:37:11 GMT -5
Very good point. Will definitely try to do that in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Jan 23, 2013 18:22:36 GMT -5
Good point. While not compulsory, it is advisable to help get a trade through. TAB members aren't mind readers, and if you're not prepared to give your reasoning for proposing and accepting a trade, you can't expect TAB to be supportive.
|
|
|
|
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 16, 2013 11:56:41 GMT -5
I didn't know this was a "thing" but if vetoing is a concern, I will abstain from voting to show my objection. We have enough TABS (when they're around) to get trades pushed through without the entire TAB core agreeing on the trade. I have seen a lot of questionable trades (even those that have explanations, many weak and vague like "I need cap room and I'm giving up a promising player."). Anybody can say that even when we see that the player is not what's advertised. If explanations are what we are looking for, expect more of that in the future.
I don't want to look at a trade, however, and I try to assess value without the reasoning as to why. I don't want to look for collusion in every deal that comes across. Some deals need to make sense instead of looking like bank heists. I think we can stand to do better in this regard. How would you like to look back at the end of the season and find you're out of the playoffs by a game or two and can trace it back to a per-season trade? Yeah, that would sting!
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 12:08:11 GMT -5
YU-
It's about basic human motivation. If your hands are tied and you can either lose your picks or get fleeced on them and come out with something on the other end....you'd choose the later. I can think of no other fantasy sports format where this would play out like this, but here it does. And you can't blame anyone for thinking that way.
It's similar to scalping tickets. Say you buy football tickets preseason for week 10 hoping you can sell them for more if the teams remain still undefeated in week 10. In week 7 you may be able to get double the face value for them if each team remains undefeated. But in week 8 both teams lose and their value falls back to face value. If you are allowed to sell you might do so and recoup your investment. But if you can't sell....maybe each team loses again in week 9 and the value falls to 1/2 face value. If you can sell you might...but if not you might be stuck with a souvenir.
Point being....it's not up to anyone to either judge you for selling or not selling or for the value you might receive for selling. The situation has changed...and value in week 7 is not the same in week 10. Other point being....you'd always be allowed to sell , not forced to hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 16, 2013 12:22:43 GMT -5
I hope it's not coming off this way but if a franchise is in deep and trying to dig their way out, I don't personally have a problem with their trying. They'd be utter buffoons to know try to help themselves after they put themselves in a bad spot.
If I'm hearing you right, you're saying why even vote on trades. Let anybody trade and accept whatever they want. There are some elements of that that makes sense but then who will be the first to protest when a franchise digs themselves in so deep, they can't get out and decide rather to GET OUT! Then we got a bad franchise nobody wants to take over because they can't possibly win this year and every team that plays them has an easy win. Is that something we're willing to live with?
I don't like having to veto deals but some had signs of collusion and douche-baggery at the core of it so I spoke out against it. Some deals were just lopsided and I feared what I said in the previous paragraph could happen and it concerned me. What's the answer here?
|
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 12:35:53 GMT -5
Yu- you seem like a logical guy. And I feel I am also. But my point is that the value is picks and trades is imbalanced based on the parameters of the salary cap and the inability to do anything about it.
Example...I'm sitting on 3 picks within the first 38 picks of this years rookie draft. These seemingly have minimal value since hardly anyone can afford them. I would be a fool to not consider anything at all (no matter how irrational and insignificant) in the future years drafts. The alternative is that I will lose them.
The same scenario presented itself during the draft when manager after manager dumped quality players at inflated salaries for late round draft picks tied to more sensible salaries.
Point being....if we're going to stick hard to the rules (in my mind irrational) then we need to stick hard to the fact that values have changed and we can no longer evaluate based on common sense. IE---managers have changed to become irrational because that is smarter than being rational and losing everything based on the rules....which is exactly what is playing out.
My vote is always to let the market work itself out. But the pinch on cash flow due to the no waive clause is what is constricting this market from behaving rationally.
|
|
|
|
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 16, 2013 17:42:09 GMT -5
Well, we are engaged in this issue now. So either we are going to give this proposal a chance or we are putting it to bed for night-night time. That's happening as we speak. Stand by!
|
|
