Does this smell like collusion- WHIR

[Matthias]

#2 I stand corrected, Matthias: you compared my ideas to a "neo-libertarian," otherwise called a Republitarian. Does it really make a difference? Bottom line, you attempted to label me with a media-created, silly, COMPLETELY unrelated political term in a Fantasy Football forum (*cough* pretentious bull@#$!@% *cough*).

I did say some people on here (including you, I don't really remember) have neo-libertarian ideas on how to run a fantasy league. But the term is not created by the media, silly, unrelated, or even necessarily political. A neo-libertarian is one who promotes the idea of minimal regulation of individual's actions. That concept applies to all sorts of things, political and not, including fantasy sports. There are some people who believe that the league which governs the least governs the best (set the rules, let 'em draft, and then let 'em play). There are others who believe that there is a place for a more active commissioner and that trades are generally more suspect as individuals are generally less trustworthy. So they would be less libertarian and more regulatory. So that's all that it means.

You should edit out those little characters after the bull, though. Using wildcards doesn't get you off of the hook for swearing around here.

[Bobbleheadrusty]

Point blank, before this gets ugly...

Anytime a player just off the WW is traded it probably deserves serious scrutiny and a possible veto (exception for top call ups/league switches). My league requires that free agent pickups be on a roster for 10 days before they can be traded.

[Motown Blues]

Thanks, but I know what it means. I will take your bait though. (And forgive me for writing another "completely unrelated to Joba Chamberlain - Mike Mussina" post. If you are not Matthias, you may want to stop reading now. )

Your neo-libertarian term I will call a philosophical belief, then, that applies to the political spectrum - in that it outlines how one's society should be governed (not his fantasy football league). I have never seen it - before now - used outside of this definition. Now, in my opinion, I actually think you have it wrong. You simply defined LIBERTARIANISM. Adding the "neo-" (again, in your pigeon-holing label) would imply that someone like me is constantly fighting to end ALL vetoing practices in ALL fantasy football leagues around the world. Because, as a neo-libertarian, I take it a step further by making my commitment, my way of life, to end all the unlawful commissioner involvement that exists in cyberspace. And that, of course is silly.

This is why I call the use of the term pretentious. I read that and go, come ON...stop it. It's obnoxious to me. Just because some want minimal commissioner / league interference doesn't make it (neo-) libertarian. It just means...what it means: as you put it, to "set the rules, let 'em draft, and then let 'em play!!!" Leave it at that!!! The term would imply SOOOOO many other things that have nothing to do with fantasy football and that many may have nothing to do with or at least philosophically believe in.

This all started, remember, with this:

Your argument is like those Creationists who come up with crazy theories, "disproving" evoluton... and then when some biologist finally takes the time to show why their theories are cracked, they say, "Aha! There's a debate!!! You see! Obviously it's a close question!"

Now, I happen to BE a Biology teacher AND a Creationist. How about that, huh? But I also believe in much of Evolution: adaptation, natural selection, creation of new species, etc....hmmmm...You see, so many people pigeon-hole Creationists and assume that they ALL just think that Evolution is lies...LIES!!!! But whatever. Let's just say, for fun, that I am one of "those" Creationists that you know so much about. Apparently, not only is my statistical backing of Mussina just silly, but now so is my whole existential view of the universe. I came here to argue a baseball question, and you obnoxiously make sweeping generalizations. Regardless, I will say that I am amused at your arrogance: Creationists are just humored by Scientists with proof, and that's the only reason it's called a debate? Do you even know what you are talking about?

So I say to you, good sir: stop labeling ideas and stick with good old fashioned fantasy baseball. You'll sound just as smart and we'll all think you're just as great if you leave out the labels.

As far as Mussina and Chamberlain go? We can certainly agree to disagree. I was not arguing to be contrary. If you gave me a choice of the two to add on my current teams (I have neither on any), I would take Mussina.

OK, I will really be done...starting...NOW.

[pjalst]

Unless I am missing something, I COMPLETELY disagree. This does not look like collusion AT ALL. Why do you all think it is? Because everyone has a Man-Crush on Joba the Hut? Whatever. Fine. The guy strikes out a lot of guys. HE HAS TWO WINS on the season, for *#%$@#'s sake. Furthermore, why is Rickie Weeks even playing in your league? HE'S HITTING .217!!!!!

On the other hand, Mike Mussina is having the best year he has had in a long time, single-handedly keeping the Yanks in the race. He second in the majors with 12 wins and has a 3.49 ERA. I think your first (or is it 3rd?) place guy is thinking that Moose will drop off second half, and is taking a chance on Chamberlain. I think Weeks is irrelevant.

Perfect example - in my opinion - how people jump to conclusions and assume it's collusion. VETO VETO VETO Everyone is cheating!! Sometimes it's easier to work out deals with other managers that you know better, perhaps talk on the phone or in person. The offer / counter process often falls apart because there is no real negotiation.

I am curious to see what happened.

I agree with Motown, I don't see why everyone is getting all flustered. Joba is a work in progress, Mussina has better numbers over the past few starts and have been steady the past 2 months. Weeks has been sitting on the bench for me for the past 2 months in one of my leagues. LaRoche is starting to hit.



SOme input http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=357760

[Motown Blues]

Unless I am missing something, I COMPLETELY disagree. This does not look like collusion AT ALL. Why do you all think it is? Because everyone has a Man-Crush on Joba the Hut? Whatever. Fine. The guy strikes out a lot of guys. HE HAS TWO WINS on the season, for *#%$@#'s sake. Furthermore, why is Rickie Weeks even playing in your league? HE'S HITTING .217!!!!!

On the other hand, Mike Mussina is having the best year he has had in a long time, single-handedly keeping the Yanks in the race. He second in the majors with 12 wins and has a 3.49 ERA. I think your first (or is it 3rd?) place guy is thinking that Moose will drop off second half, and is taking a chance on Chamberlain. I think Weeks is irrelevant.

Perfect example - in my opinion - how people jump to conclusions and assume it's collusion. VETO VETO VETO Everyone is cheating!! Sometimes it's easier to work out deals with other managers that you know better, perhaps talk on the phone or in person. The offer / counter process often falls apart because there is no real negotiation.

I am curious to see what happened.

I agree with Motown, I don't see why everyone is getting all flustered. Joba is a work in progress, Mussina has better numbers over the past few starts and have been steady the past month. Weeks has been sitting on the bench for me for the past 2 months in one of my leagues. LaRoche is starting to hit.

I don't know, pjalst. Maybe we are all just foolish, Creationist-Neolibertarian idiots in denial of the facts. *SIGH*
(now i'm done)

[pjalst]

Point blank, before this gets ugly...

Anytime a player just off the WW is traded it probably deserves serious scrutiny and a possible veto (exception for top call ups/league switches). My league requires that free agent pickups be on a roster for 10 days before they can be traded.

What difference does it make whether or not a player just off the waiver wire is traded or not, as long as the player has value. If the trade just featured the waiver wire player, yes it would raise an eyebrow. With other players involved in the trade , I don't see a problem. Now don't tell me that players on the waiver wire don't have value.

[Bobbleheadrusty]

Point blank, before this gets ugly...

Anytime a player just off the WW is traded it probably deserves serious scrutiny and a possible veto (exception for top call ups/league switches). My league requires that free agent pickups be on a roster for 10 days before they can be traded.

What difference does it make whether or not a player just off the waiver wire is traded or not, as long as the player has value. If the trade just featured the waiver wire player, yes it would raise an eyebrow. With other players involved in the trade , I don't see a problem. Now don't tell me that players on the waiver wire don't have value.

The difference is that, traditionally, those deals tend to stink to high heaven. Lets put it this way. Assuming player values from 0-100. I am trading players A an "80" for player B a "60". Now that deal normally would get vetoed, as its unreasonable for someone to trade for a much lesser player. Now you pick up two guys from the WW and the next day offer them to me. The trade is now an "80" for a "60", a "40" and a "30" and suddenly its an even deal? maybe in the most general terms, but the question has to be asked why I didnt just pick those players up myself in the meantime? If those players had value to me in this trade wouldnt they have had the same value beforehand?

Obviously there are exceptions to this. If my catcher goes down and you grab the last two starters off the WW, or a guy gets promoted then its understandable, but trading two nobodies right off the ww in order to balance a deal is crap.