What the Hell is "Value"?

[Slapweasel]

Welcome to the central discussion of any Commissioner's league.

-What is "value"?

"Value" is the free market system's way of describing what one player's stats are compared to another's when one manager is willing to pay for those statistics.
"Value" is the happiness that one owner describes when a trade is accomplished.
"Value" is the accomplishment of a manager's evaluation of a situation and the following trade.

Listen, Commissioners...

...you do NOT determine "value".

The only control you have is determining that one team's "value" during a trade is so ill-informed that it requires a change in the rules to make sure that something like that never happens again.

In the case of Yahoo, it only takes four-of-twelve votes to shit on "value". If I'm correct, most leagues allow for the "tyranny-of-the-minority" to determine "value". This should not be 'so'.

From one league to the next, the idea of "value" remains the same. What IS a player worth?

...whatever the other party is willing to pay for the player.

Get used to it, Commissioners.

...am I wrong?

-Your Friendly Neighborhood Slapweasel

[MorseOverTaveras]

I've been thinking of a system that would give such players "value", something that just isn't an arbitrary worth that is relative from person to person. Assuming that one plays in Yahoo, the numerical "value" of a player can be the sum of the average of that player's combined O-Rank and 7 day Rank, and monthly rank...granted that this isn't perfect, it will adequately provide what player(s) are worth at any point in time using a combination of the aforementioned Pre-season ranks and most up to date ranks...But to apply this as a bench to everyday league trades is just impractical...

[23]

Value is, by definition, relative. As it pertains to trades, I am very firm on Commissioner veto and nothing else. As someone else in this forum stated previously, unless a trade is ridiculously lopsided/curious, there is no reason to nix it. If someone has a problem with a trade agreed upon by two people, then that person should have made a better offer. And I'm of the belief voting opens up a can of worms in terms of bias, contentiousness, etc.

When I hear "value" in a Roto sense, my No. 1 beef is I haven't found a concrete way to ascertain a player's "value" (i.e. contribution to team) compared to another player. Trade market value is dictated by the owners in your league, but it seems to me there has to be a way to quantify a player's value to a team.

[lane_anasazi2]

The downside of comish veto is that you have to let trades go though that you're not wild about. In an advanced leagues (keeper, dynasty, salary leagues) this can lead to 3-4 world beater teams, 10 or so second division teams, and 2-3 absolute garbage teams that the poor comish tries to fill with new managers every year who are willing to spend 4 years cobbling the team back together.

That's worst case. And it only happens when some managers in your league consistently make bad moves, moves that hamper their team long term.

The downside of league veto is that it gets real petty, real fast. As soon as someone vetos because "you didn't get enough for Player X," that opens up the can of worms to basically veto any trade just because. Say you're working out a deal, and your trading partner takes your offer and goes to a third team, leveraging your offer into a better package from team C. Pissed off, you veto the trade. This happens all the time, and it leads to retribution, to more nastiness, and eventually to cliques, where some people trade with other people and categorically refuse to trade with others. THIS IS THE WORST.

The downside of league veto is FAR WORSE than the downside of comish veto. All you need to do is fill your league with managers that are at least in the ballpark of knowing what they're doing.