Snakes Gould wrote:for what its worth, i dont think anyone would question my "fairness" to the league.
we had maybe a 2 minute discussion about it, and i didnt even take it serious. this was about a month ago, so im not even really sure why it was brought up now. if he had wanted me to bring it up for debate/discussion in our league, i would have obliged.
I'm not questioning the fairness, just the perception...no matter how above reproach you are, the fact remains that you were benefiting from the transaction not taking place...that's a conflict of interest. I believe that you are a fair individual and commish...and your fellow managers most likely feel the same way. I also am not in said league and really don't know how it went down or the conversation that took place.
I'm going to be keeping an eye on you Mr. Snake...your name even sounds a bit devious.
its not as though the trade was completed and i veto'ed it. i said if a move with those intentions were made, id vote to veto it, and then more than likely id ask a few members of the league their opinion and then it would be up for debate.
fezzik wrote: I'm not questioning the fairness, just the perception...no matter how above reproach you are, the fact remains that you were benefiting from the transaction not taking place...that's a conflict of interest. I believe that you are a fair individual and commish...and your fellow managers most likely feel the same way. I also am not in said league and really don't know how it went down or the conversation that took place.
I'm going to be keeping an eye on you Mr. Snake...your name even sounds a bit devious.
its not as though the trade was completed and i veto'ed it. i said if a move with those intentions were made, id vote to veto it, and then more than likely id ask a few members of the league their opinion and then it would be up for debate.
its Mr. Gould, only Snake if you're nazzty.
Gould is a bit too close to Ghoul for my taste...if Tulo is struggling because you're haunting him or something, I'm calling foul.
byfrcp wrote:While it isn't collusion, it could go under the competitive balance argument, which I don't understand how people can argue against. If someone loved Nomar Garciaparra, he was their favorite player for 10 years, and you knowing that information trade him Nomar for Prince Fielder, that's dissrupting the competitive balance, even though technically not collusion.
I don't know how anyone can be FOR the "competitive balance" argument.
Who the hell said leagues are supposed to be competitively balanced? The point is (or should be) to compete and build the best team. Building a great team disrupts the "competitive balance". Should I not be trying to do that? Should I be striving for mediocrity?
And in your example, you're using your knowledge of baseball (Fielder > Nomar) and the tendencies of other owners (Guy has mancrush on Nomar) to make your team better. Isn't that the whole point of the game?
byfrcp wrote:While it isn't collusion, it could go under the competitive balance argument, which I don't understand how people can argue against. If someone loved Nomar Garciaparra, he was their favorite player for 10 years, and you knowing that information trade him Nomar for Prince Fielder, that's dissrupting the competitive balance, even though technically not collusion.
I don't know how anyone can be FOR the "competitive balance" argument.
Who the hell said leagues are supposed to be competitively balanced? The point is (or should be) to compete and build the best team. Building a great team disrupts the "competitive balance". Should I not be trying to do that? Should I be striving for mediocrity?
And in your example, you're using your knowledge of baseball (Fielder > Nomar) and the tendencies of other owners (Guy has mancrush on Nomar) to make your team better. Isn't that the whole point of the game?
No, Spartans. The point of the game is for everyone to reach .500, split all the money evenly, and email each other blue ribbons for being such nice people. Get with the program.
Snakes Gould wrote:for what its worth, i dont think anyone would question my "fairness" to the league.
we had maybe a 2 minute discussion about it, and i didnt even take it serious. this was about a month ago, so im not even really sure why it was brought up now. if he had wanted me to bring it up for debate/discussion in our league, i would have obliged.
I'm not questioning the fairness, just the perception...no matter how above reproach you are, the fact remains that you were benefiting from the transaction not taking place...that's a conflict of interest. I believe that you are a fair individual and commish...and your fellow managers most likely feel the same way. I also am not in said league and really don't know how it went down or the conversation that took place.
I'm going to be keeping an eye on you Mr. Snake...your name even sounds a bit devious.
its not as though the trade was completed and i veto'ed it. i said if a move with those intentions were made, id vote to veto it, and then more than likely id ask a few members of the league their opinion and then it would be up for debate.
its Mr. Gould, only Snake if you're nazzty.
Well, Snakes, I hope we've made you reconsider your opinion for the future. This deal, in the future, should be allowed and even encouraged. It's smart management, and it improves the currency of waiver priority while offering no one any unfair advantages. If you have number one and your team stinks, start selling. It's a good thing for the league.
byfrcp wrote:While it isn't collusion, it could go under the competitive balance argument, which I don't understand how people can argue against. If someone loved Nomar Garciaparra, he was their favorite player for 10 years, and you knowing that information trade him Nomar for Prince Fielder, that's dissrupting the competitive balance, even though technically not collusion.
I don't know how anyone can be FOR the "competitive balance" argument.
Who the hell said leagues are supposed to be competitively balanced? The point is (or should be) to compete and build the best team. Building a great team disrupts the "competitive balance". Should I not be trying to do that? Should I be striving for mediocrity?
And in your example, you're using your knowledge of baseball (Fielder > Nomar) and the tendencies of other owners (Guy has mancrush on Nomar) to make your team better. Isn't that the whole point of the game?
No, Spartans. The point of the game is for everyone to reach .500, split all the money evenly, and email each other blue ribbons for being such nice people. Get with the program.
I think fantasy baseball is like the only place where buying low and selling high is frowned upon. Oh and also communist countries.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
What's the big deal? He get a guy from the waiver wire and then trades him to you. There's no collusion. It's a basic trade. If it's a fair trade and the league agrees... it's done. End of story.
I think the ones who are complaining the most (in your league) are the ones who are pissed that they didn't think of it first.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
