PDA

View Full Version : In a connundrum, reworking a deal...is this sufficient? Should I even bother?!



lektrix
10-14-2010, 04:28 PM
I'm going to try to make this as short as possible...

Few days ago, Pominville was concussed by a nasty hit. I parlayed that incident with a buy-low on Bobby Ryan and miraculously landed him. I only gave up Selanne and Ian White. Go on, flame me. Hate on Selanne/White, but on the other party's team, Selanne is a 2RW (RW - Stewart, Brouwer, Pominville) and White is a 3-4D (D - Ehrhoff, Byfuglien, Campbell, Leopold, Carle, Vandermeer).

I offered this deal based on buy-low strategy and the other party's positional needs. I admit I didn't give up much and would have likely offered more IF I was countered. Now I'm receiving flak because I won two years straight, I'm the commish, and the other trading party is my friend (well known fact to everyone before the league started) and I won/broke even on two deals with 'em last season. The other trading party is receiving flak because they didn't attempt to shop Ryan around and instead took the current best offer which happened to be from me.

What our our league rules?

[I]*ALL trades will be allowed, barring collusion and/or player dumping
Our league is very liberal compared to other leagues and we pretty much accept ALL trades. In two seasons, there has only been ONE league-wide veto. Lopsided or not, the deal goes through as long as there is no cheating or collusion.

Whether we like the trade or not, we can ONLY consider veto if we think there's the slightest chance of cheating or collusion. Why? Because last year we regrettably vetoed (75% veto) one blockbuster deal involving Ovechkin based on our own personal judgement/bias/opinion and it ultimately screwed over the two trading contenders and skewed the final results.

In regards to this Selanne/White - Ryan trade,

4/14 of the league do not suspect cheating/collusion, some dislike the trade, but allow it
3/14 of the league do not suspect cheating/collusion, dislike the trade, and disallow it
1/14 of the league suspect cheating/collusion (he's been on my case for last 3yrs), dislike the trade, and disallow it
2/14 of the league don't care because they haven't responded
*the other 2 would be me and the trading party

It's good to get a general consensus of how the league feels, but IMO as a manager, I'm not obligated to do anything because we aren't playing by league votes (and even if we were, it's not more than 83.3% in favour of veto). Yes, I'm the commish...I'm impartial and somewhat agree that as a commish I should be " held to a higher standard ", but people forget that I'm also a manager competing for the prize within the same rules. Lopsided deals happen all the time in our league, just because I'm commish it doesn't mean I can't be on the receiving end on some of them...

With that said, I get the feeling that I have to " please the crowds " even though I am in no way obligated to do so. So I've contacted the other party and agreed to rework the deal by offering another trade in their favour. IMO that's really the best I can do and I'm doing it out of my own kindness.

Would the following proposals, in your eyes, be a sufficient trade off for receiving Ryan?

Base trade: Selanne, I. White for his Ryan

Possible reworked trades:

1. MDZ for I. White (pretty much Selanne, MDZ for Ryan)
2. Doan, MDZ for his Selanne, I. White (pretty much Doan, MDZ for Ryan)
3. Sharp for Selanne (pretty much Sharp, I. White for Ryan)


Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts and comments, especially if you've encountered similar " grey area " issues as a commish before, and how you've dealt with 'em. Do you give in to the crowds, or stay firm and stick by the rules you set as long as you are following them?

keyboard
10-14-2010, 04:36 PM
Judging by your numbers, you only list 12 votes for a 14 member league. If it is a 12 member league, majority don't believe you are cheating and this should not be an issue. In the future, use "League Votes".

I am the commissioner in practically every league I am in and always get accusations hurled at me. You aren't allowed to win a trade as a commissioner, it seems. The only way around it is to assign a co-commissioner, someone who isn't your friend, or at the very least, is the second most trusted hockey mind in the league. He would be consulted on all trades that involve you, the commissioner.

lektrix
10-14-2010, 04:59 PM
Judging by your numbers, you only list 12 votes for a 14 member league. If it is a 12 member league, majority don't believe you are cheating and this should not be an issue. In the future, use "League Votes".

I am the commissioner in practically every league I am in and always get accusations hurled at me. You aren't allowed to win a trade as a commissioner, it seems. The only way around it is to assign a co-commissioner, someone who isn't your friend, or at the very least, is the second most trusted hockey mind in the league. He would be consulted on all trades that involve you, the commissioner.

No it's right - 12 votes for 12 managers not involved in the trade. Me and the other party do not count.

Majority in our league is against "League Votes" because it's simply way too easy to veto for the wrong reasons. We can never tell if someone is vetoing out of jealousy, hatred, or if they actually think someone is cheating. And if we ask all 14 managers to write formulated responses for every trade that gets accepted, no ones going to play because that takes too much work. Most people have jobs and update their rosters once a day, no need to go home and have a second job waiting for them.

I like the idea of having a co-commish, but almost half the league are my "friends", one or two are douchebags, and the rest are vets but newcomers to the league. How do we begin to determine who will co-commish? How can anyone judge anyone's hockey mind, especially when we are trying to eliminate all bias, judgement, personal opinion? How would my trades be " consulted "? Do I have to go notify the co-commish of an upcoming trade before I actually send / receive it? I like the idea of it, but seems way more complicated than it looks.

keyboard
10-14-2010, 05:02 PM
No it's right - 12 votes for 12 managers not involved in the trade. Me and the other party do not count.Am I missing something?

4/14 of the league do not suspect cheating/collusion, some dislike the trade, but allow it
3/14 of the league do not suspect cheating/collusion, dislike the trade, and disallow it
1/14 of the league suspect cheating/collusion (he's been on my case for last 3yrs), dislike the trade, and disallow it
2/14 of the league don't care because they haven't responded
*the other 2 would be me and the trading party

lektrix
10-14-2010, 05:04 PM
Am I missing something?

4/14 of the league do not suspect cheating/collusion, some dislike the trade, but allow it
3/14 of the league do not suspect cheating/collusion, dislike the trade, and disallow it
1/14 of the league suspect cheating/collusion (he's been on my case for last 3yrs), dislike the trade, and disallow it
2/14 of the league don't care because they haven't responded
*the other 2 would be me and the trading party

ROFL I need to get off the computer and stop thinking about fantasy hockey. I can't even add up to 12. I stand corrected...

keyboard
10-14-2010, 05:42 PM
So, how many members have outright stated they believe it's collusion? If it's less than 50% then it shouldn't matter. This is just you getting fucked being the commissioner, which sucks, seeing as you put more effort into running the league than anyone else. You'd think that would give you some leeway.

Titleist
10-14-2010, 05:49 PM
What I don't understand is the "buy low" strategy - the season is 4 games old for the Ducks - there isn't really buying low after that many games, it's idiots panicking.

In my opinion, the trade is a complete joke and I probably wouldn't be in a league with people dumb enough to accept a deal like that.

I would vote against it in any league, but it sounds like it should go through in yours.

My rule of thumb: If someone has to write extensively on why a trade is fair, it probably isn't.

keyboard
10-14-2010, 05:58 PM
My rule of thumb: If someone has to write extensively on why a trade is fair, it probably isn't.Unfair and cheating are not the same thing, and that's the issue here.

Trading is all about being unfair to the best of your ability.

Skate or Die
10-14-2010, 06:33 PM
Definitely no veto.

The 3/14 who don't suspect collusion but are vetoing because they don't like it are the biggest douchebags of them all. (hmm, using that word a lot today).

Don't re-work. Tell your league to fuck off and stop sucking.

lektrix
10-14-2010, 07:37 PM
There's really only one person in the league that suspects cheating/collusion and he's been on my case since last year. No proof, just constant accusations everytime I get the better end of the deal on paper (I've lost my own fair share of deals too). Not even sure why he decided to come back if he's gonna bitch 24/7 over the same subject.

Ha, I would tell the league to ' f off ' but I made a pledge to be more "professional" this year..and yeah, I want people to come back next year and the year after.

UGGGGGGGGGGGH. I'm leaning towards reworking the deal just so that I can have peace. Sharp for Selanne should do the trick. I still win the trade so I guess I'm happy. Can't believe it's only one week into the season, two trades into the season, and there's been two HUGE stinks. McCabe-Niitymaki for M. Staal-M. Smith and this.

keyboard
10-14-2010, 07:53 PM
UGGGGGGGGGGGH. I'm leaning towards reworking the deal just so that I can have peace. A slippery slope. Once you do that your league becomes a joke anyway.

Titleist
10-14-2010, 08:06 PM
In my opinion, any league where a typical top 3 or 4 round pick is traded for guys that go outside of the top 10 - 15 rounds is a joke anyway when these trades are made after 4 games.

I don't think the deal should be vetoed, but if I were a member in the league I would certainly think it's unfair.

Ian White has never put up more than 26 points in his entire career. Selanne is a decent RW, but nothing spectacular. And this for Bobby Ryan? Please.

Titleist
10-14-2010, 08:14 PM
Definitely no veto.

The 3/14 who don't suspect collusion but are vetoing because they don't like it are the biggest douchebags of them all. (hmm, using that word a lot today).

Don't re-work. Tell your league to fuck off and stop sucking.

Can't you understand why other people would be unhappy with the deal? Why is someone bailing on a top pick so early in the season?

When people who give up that easily are in leagues, it becomes as much about who can rip off who as it does knowing anything about hockey.

If I had a great draft and I saw my buddy trade Olli Jokinen and Ryan Suter for Nick Backstrom 4 games in, I wouldn't be all that happy. I don't think people are douchebags for vetoing trades - anyone who is going to dump top picks within 3 or 4 games shouldn't be in any type of competitive league.

All that being said, based on the league rules it'd be pretty hard to veto the deal, but I could see why people were against it.

lektrix
10-14-2010, 08:49 PM
In my opinion, any league where a typical top 3 or 4 round pick is traded for guys that go outside of the top 10 - 15 rounds is a joke anyway when these trades are made after 4 games.

I don't think the deal should be vetoed, but if I were a member in the league I would certainly think it's unfair.

Ian White has never put up more than 26 points in his entire career. Selanne is a decent RW, but nothing spectacular. And this for Bobby Ryan? Please.

Ian White put up 38pts last year, 26 on TOR plus 12 on CAL.

Stat line 2009-2010: 13G, 25A, 38pts, +8, 51PIM, 173SOG

Better than Carle, Leopold, Vandermeer...

Selanne averaging 0.85-0.9PPG past 4 seasons, same as Bobby Ryan who has never had more than 64pts.......not saying Selanne = Ryan but just pointing out statistics... Obviously Ryan is better...

keyboard
10-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Can't you understand why other people would be unhappy with the deal? Why is someone bailing on a top pick so early in the season?The commissioner is not supposed to babysit teams and oversee trades unless he believes collusion is involved.

There is nothing more stupid than an activist commissioner who think they understand what people want more than they do.

Titleist
10-14-2010, 10:07 PM
Ian White put up 38pts last year, 26 on TOR plus 12 on CAL.

Stat line 2009-2010: 13G, 25A, 38pts, +8, 51PIM, 173SOG

Better than Carle, Leopold, Vandermeer...

Selanne averaging 0.85-0.9PPG past 4 seasons, same as Bobby Ryan who has never had more than 64pts.......not saying Selanne = Ryan but just pointing out statistics... Obviously Ryan is better...

I stand corrected about White, my bad - it doesn't completely change my opinion about the trade, but I shouldn't have posted that bad info.

Titleist
10-14-2010, 10:13 PM
The commissioner is not supposed to babysit teams and oversee trades unless he believes collusion is involved.

There is nothing more stupid than an activist commissioner who think they understand what people want more than they do.

I agree that an activist commish is not a good thing.

On the other hand, I can completely see why other owners would be frustrated by someone giving up ridiculously early on a top 30 player. I've been in leagues where trades like the one above happened and it completely ruined them more often than not - doesn't happen all the time, but when it does the league is a lot less fun.

Again, I don't think the trade should be vetoed in that league, but I can see how the other owners would be somewhat annoyed.

lektrix
10-14-2010, 10:36 PM
A slippery slope. Once you do that your league becomes a joke anyway.

Some will think it's a joke regardless of what I do. I would be doing this rework one time only..voluntarily..under my own will..to create peace and avoid conflict..because I'm the commish. If I was just a manager, I wouldn't think twice. The thing is, I care about the health of my league and don't want to have to look for 6 new managers come Sept. 2011 or worse have no league to play in. You call me weak? I call myself weak :lol:..guess sometimes you just gotta sacrifice a little for the greater good :\.


Can't you understand why other people would be unhappy with the deal? Why is someone bailing on a top pick so early in the season?

When people who give up that easily are in leagues, it becomes as much about who can rip off who as it does knowing anything about hockey.

If I had a great draft and I saw my buddy trade Olli Jokinen and Ryan Suter for Nick Backstrom 4 games in, I wouldn't be all that happy. I don't think people are douchebags for vetoing trades - anyone who is going to dump top picks within 3 or 4 games shouldn't be in any type of competitive league.

All that being said, based on the league rules it'd be pretty hard to veto the deal, but I could see why people were against it.

I can definitely understand why people would be unhappy with the deal, but would they be on the same side of the fence if they were receiving Ryan? Would they veto their own trade? We are all sharks when it comes to trades, most of us offer initial trades that are in our favour, "favour" aka lopsidedness being subjective. We are also whiners when we see a fellow manager pull off a steal of a deal when we seemingly could've, should've, would've offered something better. It's always the case of what I could've done, but didn't for whatever reason, so I'm gonna cry and whine because that's all I know how to do. Hypocrites I tell you. From off season discussions I had with my friends in the league, most of these managers offered similar lopsided deals, some even worse. And yet they are the first to bitch. I love the hypocrisy.

keyboard
10-14-2010, 10:39 PM
On the other hand, I can completely see why other owners would be frustrated by someone giving up ridiculously early on a top 30 player.It happens in real life, why can't it happen in fantasy hockey?

Chilly_Willy
10-15-2010, 02:11 PM
I don't see this trade as a veto. I don't think many people in their right mind would do it but statistically Selanne is still one of the better point producers when looked at on a per game basis and is a monster PP point producer. Ian white is nothing special but he does have 40pt capability but honestly could be replaced by half a dozen FA in most any given league.

You did get Ryan for chump change but I don't see it as a veto and if Selanne stays healthy this trade won't look as bad as if Selanne only plays 60 games or less which is likely unfortunately.

I think the only grounds they have is if this is considered player dumping.

lektrix
10-15-2010, 03:09 PM
I don't see this trade as a veto. I don't think many people in their right mind would do it but statistically Selanne is still one of the better point producers when looked at on a per game basis and is a monster PP point producer. Ian white is nothing special but he does have 40pt capability but honestly could be replaced by half a dozen FA in most any given league.

You did get Ryan for chump change but I don't see it as a veto and if Selanne stays healthy this trade won't look as bad as if Selanne only plays 60 games or less which is likely unfortunately.

I think the only grounds they have is if this is considered player dumping.

I reworked the deal and sent Sharp for Selanne.

Some think the deal is more even now, some think the deal is dead even, one or two think I might actually lose the deal. And then there's the whining idiots who purposely look for something to bitch about.

Here is one manager's comment:

"...Bobby Ryan - Yahoo Ranking - 38 Traded for Sharp - Yahoo Ranking - 212

...So this is the standard then

212- 38 = 174 point ranking swing per player traded is 100% Acceptable

As least the rules are being set

...Kunitz for Ovechkin is in the works :)

173 point swing right there.. YES!!!!!!!!!"

Nowhere does he mention that Selanne had a Yahoo Ranking of 112. Just say whatever they want to help their argument and forget about all logic.

God, I need to find myself new managers.

Titleist
10-15-2010, 03:37 PM
I can definitely understand why people would be unhappy with the deal, but would they be on the same side of the fence if they were receiving Ryan? Would they veto their own trade? We are all sharks when it comes to trades, most of us offer initial trades that are in our favour, "favour" aka lopsidedness being subjective. We are also whiners when we see a fellow manager pull off a steal of a deal when we seemingly could've, should've, would've offered something better. It's always the case of what I could've done, but didn't for whatever reason, so I'm gonna cry and whine because that's all I know how to do. Hypocrites I tell you. From off season discussions I had with my friends in the league, most of these managers offered similar lopsided deals, some even worse. And yet they are the first to bitch. I love the hypocrisy.

Yeah, if there are other owners in the league who do the same thing, then they have no right to complain just because they aren't the ones getting the deal. That is certainly annoying.

keyboard
10-15-2010, 04:50 PM
The fact you are willing to change the trade makes me think you were colluding.

lektrix
10-15-2010, 08:50 PM
The fact you are willing to change the trade makes me think you were colluding.

I can see why you feel that way, but if I was colluding, I wouldn't post this stuff here and bother to waste my time.

lektrix
04-11-2011, 05:59 PM
Hate to necro this thread, but according to Y! year-end default Roto rankings,

Selanne was 11th
Ryan 23rd
Sharp 27th

My initial trade of Selanne for Ryan was more than fair, and I actually would have lost in terms of pure stats...(Ryan does have C,LW but that's a different story)

My reworked trade of Sharp for Ryan was dead, dead even....

Lesson? Play with the "all trades go thru" rule and quit sweatin' every damn "uneven" trade out there.