suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Commissioner's Corner

suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:07 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
CBMGreatOne wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:I understand that to be your opinion and I can respect that but that doesn't mean that the guy that slept all weekend shouldn't get the last doughnut if he happens to wake up in time. Timing is everything. Personally, I have no problem with this 1-for-1 deal. Since we have looked deeper into it, I still have no problem. While I hate that anyone would neglect a team, that isn't reason enough for me to just outright veto an otherwise fair deal.


Do you not buy into the idea of collusive apathy. Manager B covered his bases, to an extent by saying "depending on who you offer" initially, but the peripheral considerations point to him not caring at all about his team. The more recent trade proves my initial impression of Manager B's attitude. I think both trades are total travesties.


Look. I may be ignorant here because I only play in leagues where I know the people and they are active. That said, I really think that you overanalyze each and every trade in order to find a reason to veto. While I hate that an owner is neglecting his team, this is a fair deal. The fact that the guy said "depending on who you offer" even strengthens this argument, IMHO. You would have a case if he said that he would trade him for anyone but that was clearly not the case here.

Yup. Well said. I think most would agree.
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5656
(Past Year: 243)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:20 pm

Yup. Well said. I think most would agree.


And be wrong... There are countless trades that hit this forum that other people complain about that I say are absolutely not vetoable. You don't even have to go to page 2 to find them. I am overanalyzing nothing.

This trade shouldn't have gone through.

Agree to disagree.

I don't care if the value is close. Trades take place in fantasy when both managers are trying hard to win. They should NOT be take place when one person is trying hard to win and the other person is merely "helping out." Like I said, the second trade kills the credibility of the first.

Lofunzo, you are approaching condescencion in your most recent post by insinuating that I am "veto happy."

I think it's easy to see why it is justifiable in this instance to believe that the deal was not struck on the "up and up."

If you don't see why I feel that way (whether or not you agree with it), you aren't looking at all the facts.

Again, no hard feelings, but I just don't agree with you and to say I'm overanalyzing is unfair.

I'm trying to help a third party remedy a league situation. I have no vested interest of any kind. I will analyze to the degree I feel appropriate. Your outright dismissal of the idea that there is anything about this trade that should raise eyebrows is what I feel is inappropriate.

These kinds of situations should never arise because in a perfect world every team is trying hard. We KNOW that manager B is not. That's when a commish should step in.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:24 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:
Yup. Well said. I think most would agree.


And be wrong... There are countless trades that hit this forum that other people complain about that I say are absolutely not vetoable. You don't even have to go to page 2 to find them. I am overanalyzing nothing.

This trade shouldn't have gone through.

Agree to disagree.

I don't care if the value is close. Trades take place in fantasy when both managers are trying hard to win. They should NOT be take place when one person is trying hard to win and the other person is merely "helping out." Like I said, the second trade kills the credibility of the first.

Lofunzo, you are approaching condescencion in your most recent post by insinuating that I am "veto happy."

I think it's easy to see why it is justifiable in this instance to believe that the deal was not struck on the "up and up."

If you don't see why I feel that way (whether or not you agree with it), you aren't looking at all the facts.

Again, no hard feelings, but I just don't agree with you and to say I'm overanalyzing is unfair.

I'm trying to help a third party remedy a league situation. I have no vested interest of any kind. I will analyze to the degree I feel appropriate. Your outright dismissal of the idea that there is anything about this trade that should raise eyebrows is what I feel is inappropriate.

These kinds of situations should never arise because in a perfect world every team is trying hard. We KNOW that manager B is not. That's when a commish should step in.


LMAO. I love how you call us wrong and then say "agree to disagree".

I really don't think that I am being condescending in the least. I think that I am being observant. Now, I don't look at every thread in this section but I try to and it seems like you give a vote to veto more than anyone else here. If that doesn't make you "veto happy", it must make you "veto happier".

Now, you brought up a point that I must completely disagree with. You state that the commish must step in to stop inactive managers from making moves. A good commish would have seen this coming from a mile away. It's really easy to see the last league activity for each leaguemate. 1 week?? Maybe on vacation or has an illness/family issue. 2 weeks?? Something must be up. A month?? I am sending a search party. Since nothing was done to this guy, I don't see how it's anyone's right to tell him how to or how not to run his team. He came back and made a move. Why is he not allowed to?? Is this a Yahoo or league rule?? I don't think so. Get rid of him or don't invite him back next year but I fail to see how putting an activity minimum on anyone retroactively is anything more than severe micromanaging by the commish and/or other leaguemates.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:27 pm

LMAO. I love how you call us wrong and then say "agree to disagree".


Umm, you just called me wrong, yes?

Whether or not I believe you to be wrong does not preclude an agreement to disagree.

I don't understand why the accomodating attitude of manager B does nothing to incite any discomfort in you at all.

But then again, I have my opinion and you have yours.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:31 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:
LMAO. I love how you call us wrong and then say "agree to disagree".


Umm, you just called me wrong, yes?

Whether or not I believe you to be wrong does not preclude an agreement to disagree.

I don't understand why the accomodating attitude of manager B does nothing to incite any discomfort in you at all.

But then again, I have my opinion and you have yours.


I disn't say that you were wrong. I said that I disagreed with you. There is a difference. I also added to my post above.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:37 pm

:~( Image
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st], '13, [1st/2nd], '14, [1st/1st]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5656
(Past Year: 243)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:51 pm

Now, you brought up a point that I must completely disagree with. You state that the commish must step in to stop inactive managers from making moves. A good commish would have seen this coming from a mile away. It's really easy to see the last league activity for each leaguemate. 1 week?? Maybe on vacation or has an illness/family issue. 2 weeks?? Something must be up. A month?? I am sending a search party. Since nothing was done to this guy, I don't see how it's anyone's right to tell him how to or how not to run his team. He came back and made a move. Why is he not allowed to?? Is this a Yahoo or league rule?? I don't think so. Get rid of him or don't invite him back next year but I fail to see how putting an activity minimum on anyone retroactively is anything more than severe micromanaging by the commish and/or other leaguemates.


Micromanaging isn't necessary except in instances of collusion. This deal fits my definition of collusion. I'm not stopping managers from making moves. I WANT my managers to make moves, and lots of them. I DON'T want people to make moves that aren't made with the interest of their own team in mind. His lack of activity, accomodating attitude, and subsequent terrible trade are all contributory factors in my mind to the notion that he really didn't care who he was offered, Figgins was moving if his buddy asked nicely.

In my mind I have NEVER vetoed a trade to micromanage a team, and I would hope that those under my commissionership would wholeheartedly agree with that, and I think they do.

To me, if I'm IMing my buddy who hasn't checked his team in forever with a leading line of "Trade me Soriano," I'm expecting his first reply to be "who are you going to give me?" not "ok." It is patently obvious that manager B doesn't care about his team for a multitude of reasons.

The fact that Manager A offered Bonderman was a nice gesture. It doesn't legitimize the platform from which the deal was struck. It just makes it resemble a fair deal to everyone else.

Obviously this guy doesn't belong in next year's league. That isn't even up for discussion at this point.

And I do say that a veto is appropriate in many of the threads that come up here, and we've butted heads on a few of them, but we are not far removed from a time when the popular thing to do was surreptitiously dismiss any notion of a veto with a simple: "No collusion, no veto" line.

The board is evolving. People around these parts are finding vetoes appropriate more often than they were two years ago. I'd like to think that sensible dialogue to which I have contributed is a big part of that.

I understand wanting the league to be active, but you have yet to express any disdain for manager B's apathy, and I just can't endorse a complete denial of that factor's significance.

Again, some will say, even though manager B was accomodating, the deal is even value, and isn't vetoable merely because of that.

I think the intentions of the managers involved are far more important than players changing place in most of these situations.

To make it simple, I generally dislike "dead teams" breaking months of silence by making a trade. I even warn my leaguemates that if they fall out of activity for weeks or months at a time that their trades will be more closely scrutinized and more apt to be vetoed.

On the other hand, if said teams really do want to make a serious effort from that point forward in the season, I would fully endorse them getting back into activity. If I see sincerity in their effort during a trade negotiation, I will let them do what they want. Manager B has conceded that he will not now regain interest in his team in this case, so that doesn't come into play.

Oh the complicated politics of fantasy baseball.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Bwanna » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:25 pm

CBMGreatOne wrote:Oh the complicated politics of fantasy baseball.
Uhhh... as complicated as you want to make it.

Bwanna wrote:I wouldn't veto it. It's an acceptable trade at face value, and I think that's all you can go on.
Yup, I still stand by that.

Triplec223 wrote:Yup, this went down. Only one owner was upset with the trade and he was in 2nd place.
Pretty much sums it up.

My brain hurts ... from these ... complicated fantasy baseball politics...
Image
[reg season/playoffs]
LFoD '08 [1st/3rd], '10 [1st/3rd], '11 [1st/2nd], '12 [1st/1st], '13, [1st/2nd], '14, [1st/1st]
BRAL '09 2nd, '10 1st
Bwanna
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 5656
(Past Year: 243)
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby Lofunzo » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:10 am

CBM.......I really think that we just have differing opinions on the word collusion. If the 1 guy IM'd the other guy and said that he wanted Figgins and was responded to with a "just offer anything up and I'll accept it", I would agree. I don't see how this conversation even remotely resembles collusion. He asked who would be coming his way, was told Bonderman, and accepted. Seems fine to me.

As an aside, have you played in leagues with shady people?? I ask because it seems like you like to sniff for collusion in every deal. I ask this seriously and not as a joke.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: suspicious trade: Bonderman for Figgins?

Postby CBMGreatOne » Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:12 am

Lofunzo wrote:CBM.......I really think that we just have differing opinions on the word collusion. If the 1 guy IM'd the other guy and said that he wanted Figgins and was responded to with a "just offer anything up and I'll accept it", I would agree. I don't see how this conversation even remotely resembles collusion. He asked who would be coming his way, was told Bonderman, and accepted. Seems fine to me.

As an aside, have you played in leagues with shady people?? I ask because it seems like you like to sniff for collusion in every deal. I ask this seriously and not as a joke.


I've played in all sorts of leagues with all sorts of players. I've seen all sorts of trades get accepted, protested, vetoed, not vetoed, whatever.

I've seen commissioner's that make trades the day of the draft getting Ladainian Tomlinson for Muhsin Muhammad and Michael Strahan and then tell everybody to f#$% off when they complain about the trade.

I've seen guys trade with friends just to help each other out and not see anything wrong with it.

I really don't understand for one second why you guys are so willing to COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that this guy wasn't trying before he made the trade, and isn't trying after he made the trade. (You see how this probably means that he wasn't trying while making the trade?)

His trading manner was entirely cooperative in the first instance. It's been more than just cooperative in the second one. If you think I'm looking too deeply, I equally adamantly assert that you guys aren't looking deeply enough.

I'm not gonna post any cartoons or mock anyone's opinion. I will not engage in that sort of nonsense.

I will merely continue to stand by the principle that a fantasy trade is made out of interest for your team, not someone else's.

I can see why the equal value thing leads you to not care about the other considerations. I completely get that. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.

Let me put it to you this way.

If he has already given up on his team (he admitted he has) and he will not begin following his team now (he admitted he won't), then what business does he have making a trade merely to facilitate another owner?

I acknowledge your position and that is that the trade was freely offered and accepted and it is of fair value.

I just believe there is an additional element here such that some people (even if not most) would attach enough merit to to *consider* a veto.

Obviously your minds are cemented in place. Fine by me.

Oh and I never offer trades to dead teams. I know a lot of people do and a lot of people want their elite players to be at least somewhat available via trade. I just think that it is a sensitive issue. Again, I won't necessarily veto a trade between a team that has fallen out of activity, I just think that the more recent trade destroys the previous one's credibility, so I think my foresight concerning said inactive manager was proven correct.

I wasn't nearly as convinced with my line of thought before the more recent trade as I was after, I admit. Perhaps I overstated the case earlier when I said that I would never allow it in my league, but my instinct would have been to talk to manager B if I was commish and if I wasn't satisfied with what I heard I would have vetoed the trade.
CBMGreatOne
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3166
(Past Year: 89)
Joined: 30 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Commissioner's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


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