 |
|
|
|
|
|
Village Idiots
Towel Boy
31 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 10/27/2009 5:07:56 PM |
 |
 |
trade
|
|
|
|
Keith,
We are vetoing the Randy Moss for LeRon McLain deal, right?
Thanks,
Bob |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electrons
General Manager
365 posts
 |
Fu: 99.10 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/27/2009 5:21:11 PM |
|
|
trade
|
|
|
|
Dave offered me the trade but I called him to be sure it was what he was really wanted.
He gave his reasoning for the trade and I accepted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 10/28/2009 6:29:28 AM |
|
|
Shenanigans Vote
|
|
|
|
it sounds like it is being officially called for, and so a league ballot box has been created for this. if 5 owners vote No, then the trade is reversed as described in the rule book. the ballot box will be active until either enough owners vote to come to a conclusion either way, or 3 days pass, whichever comes first.
on a personal note, i think that these Shenanigans issues can be a little murky since in this case i believe that there was no ill intent or collusion going on, as Time Served really has an optimistic approach to McClain's future potential. even so, sometimes Shenanigans can be called for in cases of strong imbalance, and this trade probably falls more into that category of consideration. it's not an easy thing to get into the editorializing of team management, as who is to say that so-and-so's ideas are not valid? that being said, i haven't cast my vote as of yet but i'm inclined to vote along with the Idiots and call shenanigans on this one. if i do so, it's not something i do lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/1/2009 7:57:08 AM |
|
|
Shenanigans Results
|
|
|
|
| After four days, the official tally is only 4 votes against the trade - it takes 5 votes to pass Shenanigans and reverse a trade. The league as a whole has approved the trade. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Village Idiots
Towel Boy
31 posts
|
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/1/2009 9:08:37 AM |
|
|
Did everyone vote - read the rules
|
|
|
|
In the rules it states that ALL of the owners not involved in the trade will vote.
"If one is called for, then all owners not involved in the trade will vote, even if it takes the rest of the day to get everyone's vote. The vote is resolved and the trade is either approved or disapproved; 50% is considered a veto. "
Did everyone in the league vote?
This trade is totally unacceptable - what a joke! I can't believe I'm in a dynasty league that would let this pass. A top 10 receiver for a back-up running back with no keeper value what-so-ever - nice.
I'd love to hear how the others in the league feel about this one.
You gotta speak up if we want to make this right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/1/2009 7:23:48 PM |
|
|
I agree.
|
|
|
|
| There is no possible fair value in this trade. Even if this is merely an uneven trade made in good faith it must be refused. It's not even close. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drinking Team
Coordinator
185 posts
 |
Fu: 102.27 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/4/2009 9:15:53 PM |
|
|
Let the trade stand! Its not your team, let each coach play their own team.
|
|
|
|
| I feel the qualifications for a vote should be collusion. If someone makes a trade that is unbalanced, start trading with them. Problem solved. If you start trying to measure value, where does it end? Can we call shananigans on a draft pick? It sounds more like sour grapes to me. Two others didn't accept the trade offers made to them. Maybe we should vote if they should have taken the offers given to them! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Village Idiots
Towel Boy
31 posts
|
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/5/2009 4:21:02 PM |
|
|
Where's Keith??
|
|
|
|
Collusion ruins a league and if there are no safeguards against it, it will ruin this one - if it already hasn't.
How do you determine what is collusion and what is just a bad trade? I don't personally know any of you except for Jeff and to some extent, Keith. I do know that a lot of you are friends whom are obviously more likely to work together. I don't know about the two owners involved in the trade.
So from my perspective, there is more than a good chance that this is collusion. I obviously could be wrong, but I'm assuming it's collusion.
Where is Keith and why isn't he involved in any of this? It's time the commish speaks up instead of being remaining totally silent during all of this!!
By the way, the offer made to me was Randy Moss for Calvin Johnson and Johnny Knox. There was nothing wrong with the offer at all, but since it's a dynasty league I decided not to accept it even though it probably helps me in the short term. How can he make that offer and then turn around and offer Moss for McClain? It doesn't make sense. LeRon McClain isn't even owned in any of the other leagues I'm in. I've been in FF leagues for almost 15 years and have never seen such a bad trade hold up. I've never been in a league that would allow it to hold up.
If it sounds like "sour grapes" to Drinking Team as he wrote in his post, then he's missing the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electrons
General Manager
365 posts
|
Fu: 99.10 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/5/2009 4:45:22 PM |
|
|
Working together...
|
|
|
|
I took this team as a favor to Keith since he had trouble finding an owner. I am friends with Keith and two other people in this league however we are not "working together" to create nefarious results. Nor are we out to create unfair advantages over people we do not know personally in this league. We all want to win but no one is trying to cheat to do so (that I am aware of). How can I not accept that trade? I see the imbalance of it but Dave sees it differently so who am I to say he is wrong in his thinking? I stated before that I called him and talked to him about this trade since it seemed like an odd offer. Keith told me it would probably go to a vote and I agreed that it was likely but I still wasn't going to refuse the trade.
Keith will be posting soon I am sure. He has clients that come before this site unfortunately. Gotta pay the bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Village Idiots
Towel Boy
31 posts
|
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/5/2009 9:15:02 PM |
|
|
Missing 2 votes
|
|
|
|
From the rules (again):
"If one is called for, then all owners not involved in the trade will vote, even if it takes the rest of the day to get everyone's vote. The vote is resolved and the trade is either approved or disapproved; 50% is considered a veto."
There were only 8 votes out of the 10 non-involved owners. I think someone should contact the other 2 owners and have them vote. If they both vote to uphold the trade, I will have absolutely no problem with it since we're abiding by the rules. If one of the two vote to veto, the trade should be vetoed.
This is the last post you'll get from me (promise) as long as we're following the rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/6/2009 9:11:30 AM |
|
|
ah, the chatter of democracy
|
|
|
|
i thought it would be good for me to finally offer my comments on a few things. in the end, i believe that this is not that big of an issue and that everything will end well.
it is important to note right off the bat that if anyone is actually worried about collusion or any flavor of "I'll trade because you are a friend," you can confidently not worry about that any more. if there was any hint of that actually happening, i'd be all over it and be taking names. in this case, the Time Served made an offer to the Electrons based on the actual belief that it would benefit his team more in the long run. yes, i agree with the league consensus that this is a ridiculous trade (no offense intended, Dave) - but it truly was a valid trade offer made with no collusion or special considerations towards real life people.
i was hoping that Time Served would have taken the lead in defending his trade offer, since this is really his fight and not mine. T.S., perhaps if you get a little time you could chime in and assuage everyone's concerns about ill intent? both Gustafson (Drinking Team) and i know that when Dave lights a candle for a player, he really does so with huge man-crush gusto. i think that was the case here.
being that collusion and special considerations were not part of this process, it simply becomes a Shenanigans Vote that is based on game inbalance. and that, my friends, is trickier than it first appears.
when i first created the Ballot Box for the vote, i had the full intent of voting No on the trade because it's just the silliest thing i've ever seen (again, no offense Dave). but i withheld my vote and then synchronicity happened a day later: a friend called and wanted to get my impression of a trade offer that is in a league i'm not in - you know, just for feedback. it was a BALLSY trade of like 6 studs and in return he'd get Adrian Peterson and another player; but in their system, they get to keep 1 player from year to year and so he was willing to pay that price. i thought it was gutsy and maybe a little nutsy, but ultimately said "sure, why not?"
and then he told me that in their league, *every* accepted trade has to go through a standard league vote. like, every single one (we DO not want that, lady and gents). and that his league vetoed the trade.
now, at this point, i had to check myself. i realized that this is similar territory as, oh, say the First Amendment. this is a type of a free speech issue, of the owners involved really believing that they are making a trade that benefits themselves. this is true of the blockbuster AP trade i described, and it's also true of Time Served's trade in our league.
and so i actually changed my mind. unless there is collusion / special-friend-considerations, or unless the trade destroys a team's competitiveness, it becomes a slippery slope to start editorializing everyone else's management. i tend to be an absolutist about the Bill of Rights, and i'm leaning that way when it comes to actually calling Shenanigans on anyone in our league. i know most of the people in the league personally and i have no question whatsoever about their integrity, and my intuition says that i can feel the same way about Bob and Jeff.
all this being said, everyone has the right to their own opinion. i think that we've mathematically resolved the vote because 5 No votes were cast, but for future situations i ask everyone to consider the principles that i've brought up here.
speaking of votes, i also think that simply for practical purposes we need to amend the rules for how a Shenanigans Vote is implemented. since this is such a rare occurance, we didn't really have a clear idea of how it would actually be executed and therefore it's a bit clunky. going forward, rather than requiring all owners to vote we will simply have a threshold of 5 No votes being required within a reasonable time window (say, 72 hours).
when the Idiots called for a vote, an email went to everyone in the league. when i created an official Ballot Box and made a post on the board, an email went to everyone in the league. each time a comment was made about this on the forum, an email was sent to everyone in the league. and yet some owners still chose to not cast their vote. and i think that is their right. in a way, it's a passive Yes vote, but in any case it's kind of moot because we really only need 5 No votes in order to resolve it.
and so this modification is needed because the alternative requires someone to be the "whip" and contact everyone and hold their hand and make them vote. i can't make people vote. and i'm not going to spend who knows how much time on the phone trying to track people down and talk to them about a trade that i'm not even involved in. i'm guessing that no one else wants this job either, and rightfully so. we are all adults here.
alrighty, i think that kind of brings general closure to the issue? the official vote tall |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/6/2009 9:12:07 AM |
|
|
...last paragraph got cut off
|
|
|
|
| alrighty, i think that kind of brings general closure to the issue? the official vote tally resulted in the trade being negated and the players returned to their original rosters. Time Served, if you feel inspired please feel free to offer your thoughts on why you offered the trade and let everyone know that there was no collusion or special considerations that anyone needs to worry about. oh, and T.S. let's talk trading! ;) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time Served
Football Freak
529 posts
|
Fu: 99.57 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/15/2009 11:58:40 PM |
|
|
As for my oppinion about the trade
|
|
|
|
In order to win this league, it takes a long term approach toward managing a franchise. Finding young potential that will mature at the same time so that franchise can make a long term run at consecutive winning seasons. If you look at most of the players on my team they are young and I believe have a lot of long term value. As do the players that I offered to trade for. The one player on my roster that that doesn't fit this type is Moss. As I said to the Electrons owner, "When I win this league 5 or 6 years from now Randy Moss will no longer be a factor in the NFL", Nor will he be on my team. Was the trade one sided? If you look at the short term yes, if you look at the trade as a 4 year commitment I feel I would have been the long term benefactor.
Having my decisions being being criticized and second guessed is not something I'm used to nor do I appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2009 9:57:36 PM |
|
|
Weeks scores?
|
|
|
|
| Not sure about all the games/players but my game is missing a td for Romo, a return td for Jamal Charles and recieving yardage for both Witten and Miles Austin. Did not look real close at any of the other players. I'm sure ypu're on it Keith but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
