Lacy for McCoy

[MilkSpiller22]

Tko, you have to realize that I am making assumptions galore. And position to me may be the biggest factor.

Let's say the trade was McCoy for Peyton manning. What would your first assumption be, mine would be that the McCoy owner does not feel confident with his qb and likes his replacement RB enough. Same with if the trade was for Calvin. It is easier to see the logic because the trade would fix a potential problem.

I know you hate assumptions, but I don't understand how you can ever veto a trade without making some assumptions. And I am trying hard not to make any crazy assumptions and only making logical ones.

So to me, trading for the same position is a huge factor to the question since they are in direct comparison. It's not about their teams it's only about the players!!!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And the shopping around is just the icing on the cake. Would not be a factor if there wasn't other questionable things.

 

[tlance]

Let me just say that your line of thinking is why public leagues are no fun. Too many people veto for petty reasons (like this) and an owner's hard work is wasted.

You say you don't really care about the results, but if you veto a deal like this and Lacy goes on to be the #1 RB while McCoy slumps or gets hurt, then YOUR decision has essentially ruined the McCoy owner's season.

I am not arrogant enough to make that call, but it seems like you might be? Good thing there are no vetos in MBBRL.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Let me just say that your line of thinking is why public leagues are no fun. Too many people veto for petty reasons (like this) and an owner's hard work is wasted.

You say you don't really care about the results, but if you veto a deal like this and Lacy goes on to be the #1 RB while McCoy slumps or gets hurt, then YOUR decision has essentially ruined the McCoy owner's season.

I am not arrogant enough to make that call, but it seems like you might be? Good thing there are no vetos in MBBRL.

OUCH!!! the Jab of Tlance hurts...

But again, i agree with you that veto systems are awful, but what bothers me is the logic that people have that they wait for the egregious trade... If you are going to veto what you think is collusion then why should it matter how egregious it is??

So in this exercise i put myself in the shoes of someone willing to veto a trade (I know they are ugly shoes), and if i am to ever veto a trade, i would rather veto anything that i believe is collusion, I would rather snip the collusion in the bud before it gets to the egregious stage...

I dont see why i am being petty though, and i dont understand how you can ever veto a deal without making your own assumptions about the deal... But then again, as i stated i am a noob on vetoing, i have never done it before...

 

[Chef99]

I think this thread has now gotten to the egregious stage. Bye, it was fun for awhile!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think this thread has now gotten to the egregious stage. Bye, it was fun for awhile!

come on chef... you have been the best part of this thread, you randomly pop up to summarize the emotional progress of this thread...

 

[Sam Sportboy]

So would you veto Doug Martin for Sproles? Would you veto Charles for Murray? Would you veto Jordy for Brown..................

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So would you veto Doug Martin for Sproles? Would you veto Charles for Murray? Would you veto Jordy for Brown..................

would not veto any of those...

 

[Sam Sportboy]

would not veto any of those...

Then I can't understand why you would veto Lacey for McCoy. Shit, I have McCoy 1 and Lacey 4 I think and I wouldn't veto that trade............would you veto McCoy for Murray?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Then I can't understand why you would veto Lacey for McCoy. Shit, I have McCoy 1 and Lacey 4 I think and I wouldn't veto that trade............would you veto McCoy for Murray?

no i wouldn't...

But here is another i would veto, Antonio Brown for keenan Allen...

 

[Sam Sportboy]

no i wouldn't...

But here is another i would veto, Antonio Brown for keenan Allen...

That would be IMO a stupid and shitty trade................but I wouldn't veto it..................funny thing. Last year after week 3 or 4 a guy in a league (I'm no longer in) traded LBell and a WR I can't remember for Lynch....I bitched, moaned and yes, I vetoed that trade (first and probably last time) and guess what? The Bell side was the winner in that trade. Wish I could remember who the WR was............all I know is the Bell team damn near made the playoffs.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

Ok, last year week 2 or 3. AP and Nicks for Lynch and DJax. Fair?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Ok, last year week 2 or 3. AP and Nicks for Lynch and DJax. Fair?

I wouldnt have vetoed that trade DJAX was supposed to be better than nicks..

 

[Chef99]

Hell, I would have vetoed that piece of shit Martin for Sproles...unless I was the one getting Sproles!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

lets make a game: what would milkspiller veto??

I am sure it could be a fun game!!!

 

[tlance]

I already know the answer, but this was a trade that was offered to me on Tuesday. Keep in mind, at the time Green was thought to be out this week with a week 4 bye.

AJ Green
Ben Tate
D'Angelo Williams
Harry Douglass

for

Keenan Allen
Bennie Cunningham
Jordan Mathews

so, 3 hurt guys and a scrub for 1 healthy guy (before any news of Allen injury) and 2 lottery tickets.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I already know the answer, but this was a trade that was offered to me on Tuesday. Keep in mind, at the time Green was thought to be out this week with a week 4 bye.

AJ Green
Ben Tate
D'Angelo Williams
Harry Douglass

for

Keenan Allen
Bennie Cunningham
Jordan Mathews

so, 3 hurt guys and a scrub for 1 healthy guy (before any news of Allen injury) and 2 lottery tickets.

tough one!! I have a much tougher time vetoeing packages, but i guess looking at the logic behind this trade, if the owner was so worried about AJ Green for this week he should have also known about Roddy White... And that Douglas was supposed to be a pretty good start this week... so i see very little logic for this trade for week 3... As Jordan Matthews and Bennie Cunningham are not quite ready to be startable(assuming 10-14 team league with at most one flex), the trade is basically only for keenan allen... which worries me, because allen has not shown anything this season...

So at this point i would probably veto it... But it is because of the Harry douglas add in... I probably would be ok with the trade without the douglas add in...

 

[tlance]

tough one!! I have a much tougher time vetoeing packages, but i guess looking at the logic behind this trade, if the owner was so worried about AJ Green for this week he should have also known about Roddy White... And that Douglas was supposed to be a pretty good start this week... so i see very little logic for this trade for week 3... As Jordan Matthews and Bennie Cunningham are not quite ready to be startable(assuming 10-14 team league with at most one flex), the trade is basically only for keenan allen... which worries me, because allen has not shown anything this season...

So at this point i would probably veto it... But it is because of the Harry douglas add in... I probably would be ok with the trade without the douglas add in...

On Tuesday, White was a "lock" to play, and I dropped Douglas as soon as the deal went through to add Brian Quick. The funny part is that I almost countered with the same offer minus Douglass, because I did not want to have to drop anybody so that I could take on another piece I didn't want.

Douglas' inclusion made the package significantly less attractive to me.

 

[tlance]

There is an interesting take away here.

You would have vetoed this trade because Douglass was in it, and I almost did not want to do it (not really) because Douglass was in it.

People evaluate players in much different ways, so just because you think a trade is imbalanced by your logical assessment does not make it vetoable. We both saw this same deal and came to vastly different conclusions regarding the players in it.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

There is an interesting take away here.

You would have vetoed this trade because Douglass was in it, and I almost did not want to do it (not really) because Douglass was in it.

People evaluate players in much different ways, so just because you think a trade is imbalanced by your logical assessment does not make it vetoable. We both saw this same deal and came to vastly different conclusions regarding the players in it.

but again, just answer this one question

If you are willing to veto a trade, how are you supposed to do so without making your own assumptions and opinions about that trade???