Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boards Division 4 Thread

Options
1…457910…56

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    It's quite simple. Here's how I would hypothetically do it:

    Guys, I don't think that trade is fair at all and I ask you to trade the players you received back.


  • Options
    #183
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    It happened last year and the owners swapped the players back with no problems.

    Later in the year the GM did need to kick an owner and take the team in charge and undo a number of trades/transactions. It is and waas a total mess, but you can only try to keep the league as fair as possible for all involved.

    The problem with the league voting being the only policing, is that 4 or 5 might be aware of the trade, take time to vote against it, but still lose as 12 other members abstained. I think this would allow the trade to go through.


  • Options
    #184
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    matthew8 wrote: »
    The protection is I can say to the owners that the trade is unfair and they must reverse it. I'll give them a chance to come on here and explain why the trade was made. I know this trade has been in the works since draft night, and tbh I think someone made a mistake with the offer or something. .

    As league GM you cannot reverse anything. We have it in the rules that the rest of the league votes on the trade. Do not abuse your power of GM to go against the rules we all set in place.

    As members of the league if you all don't agree with it click the veto button. Div 3 had a similar situation.

    GMs are just figure heads who helped setup the league and help maintain it. The members make all the decisions not the GM.


  • Options
    #185
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Alright, I'll just vote against it then.


  • Options
    #186
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    matthew8 wrote: »
    It's quite simple. Here's how I would hypothetically do it:

    Guys, I don't think that trade is fair at all and I ask you to trade the players you received back.

    "No, I/we think it's a fair trade, the league had a chance to veto it and didn't. Why should a trade that we both think is fair be undone by the subjective opinion of you/a small number of other players."

    There is no way I would undo a trade I thought was fair after it had gone through the vote.
    poldebruin wrote: »
    It happened last year and the owners swapped the players back with no problems.

    Later in the year the GM did need to kick an owner and take the team in charge and undo a number of trades/transactions. It is and waas a total mess, but you can only try to keep the league as fair as possible for all involved.

    The problem with the league voting being the only policing, is that 4 or 5 might be aware of the trade, take time to vote against it, but still lose as 12 other members abstained. I think this would allow the trade to go through.

    huh I can't remember either of those from last year. I remember the GM taking over control of teams more than halfway through and adding/dropping players and in general doing **** he shouldn't.

    The league vote isn't perfect but it's the fairest way to do it imo. It's an owner's responsibility to take an interest in their league. The GM should not have the power to undo a trade.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »

    The problem with the league voting being the only policing, is that 4 or 5 might be aware of the trade, take time to vote against it, but still lose as 12 other members abstained. I think this would allow the trade to go through.

    The leagues have message boards and one that gets sent to each member also you have here to discuss it. If members dont check it thats simply tough sh1t. Besides you only need a certain amount of Vetos.


  • Options
    #188
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    I really don't think we should say anything anyway until one of the owners comes online and we know it wasn't a mistake. If it's accepted, the blue bloods will have Eli Manning, CJ2K, Ray Rice, Eric Decker, Jordy Nelson, Julio Jones and DeSean Jackson. That is a ridiculous team in a 16 team league.


  • Options
    #189
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    The leagues have message boards and one that gets sent to each member also you have here to discuss it. If members dont check it thats simply tough sh1t. Besides you only need a certain amount of Vetos.

    Well the chairman does have a power of some description as outlined in the charter. I think it's fair to say that this proposed trade falls into that category. This makes no mention of a league vote.

    "10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently. "

    Not everyone is going to be active during the week, nor might they have access to emails to be made aware of the trade.

    Matthew8 has already mentioned there may be a mistake with the proposal as it stands - it certainly looks odd, so hopefully that will be confirmed to be the case.


  • Options
    #190
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    Masked Man wrote: »
    "huh I can't remember either of those from last year. I remember the GM taking over control of teams more than halfway through and adding/dropping players and in general doing **** he shouldn't.

    Well it did happen, it may not have been a trade, but it was some sort of transaction that was frowned upon.
    Masked Man wrote: »
    The league vote isn't perfect but it's the fairest way to do it imo. It's an owner's responsibility to take an interest in their league. The GM should not have the power to undo a trade.

    Not all owners will be tuned in throughout the week. If the league vote fails to veto this trade, you would be happy to accept it, and let it go through?


  • Options
    #191
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »

    "10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently. "

    You are missing the point of that rule and in this case it doesn't apply as this trade is not an obvious one sided trade. In fact its not one sided at all. Some might not agree with it but Rule 10 does not apply here. If both parties made the trade which both seen it to be fair and no collusion between them happened to make 1 team stronger than the other Rule 10 does not apply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »



    Not all owners will be tuned in throughout the week. If the league vote fails to veto this trade, you would be happy to accept it, and let it go through?

    So what. The veto is in place and everyone knows about it. When trades are proposed people get emails about it pointing them towards it. Also as members of a Boards.ie league it is on every member to be active in the league and check here also. If an owner isnt tuned in tough sh1t, That member is at fault for not bothering to check their own league.


  • Options
    #193
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    poldebruin wrote: »
    Well it did happen, it may not have been a trade, but it was some sort of transaction that was frowned upon.

    Not all owners will be tuned in throughout the week. If the league vote fails to veto this trade, you would be happy to accept it, and let it go through?

    I didn't mean to say it didn't happen, just kinda surprised I don't remember it.

    I'd accept it if it goes through. I'm probably not the best person to ask though. I'll pretty much only veto a trade if there's collusion, which might be a bit extreme. Plus I agree with everything TO said, it's an owner's responsibility to check the league. Like I said it's not perfect but it's down to the players to make the best of it and be active in the league and on here.


  • Options
    #194
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    You are missing the point of that rule and in this case it doesn't apply as this trade is not an obvious one sided trade. In fact its not one sided at all. Some might not agree with it but Rule 10 does not apply here. If both parties made the trade which both seen it to be fair and no collusion between them happened to make 1 team stronger than the other Rule 10 does not apply.

    Come now, I know that you know your NFL, and you can't honestly say you think this trade isn't an abomination.

    Ray Rice for Peyton Hillis
    Eli Manning for Andrew Luck
    DeSean Jackson for Justin Blackmon
    Mercedes Lewis for AN Other that will need to be dropped to make room?

    Rice is the #1 rated back on FF Sharks, Hillis is #37
    Manning is rated #7 amongst QBs, Luck is #18
    Jackson is #28, Blackmon is #38
    Lewis, as has been mentioned is waiver wire fodder. (ranked #24 over all TEs)

    Any one of these as a standalone trade would raise eyebrows - all three together is completely ridiculous.


  • Options
    #195
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    Masked Man wrote: »
    I didn't mean to say it didn't happen, just kinda surprised I don't remember it.

    I'd accept it if it goes through. I'm probably not the best person to ask though. I'll pretty much only veto a trade if there's collusion, which might be a bit extreme. Plus I agree with everything TO said, it's an owner's responsibility to check the league. Like I said it's not perfect but it's down to the players to make the best of it and be active in the league and on here.

    If you only veto a trade where you can prove collusion, then you will not be vetoing any trade at all - how can you prove collusion between teams? You can certainly suspect it, but to prove it?

    Rule 10 on the charter outlines two ideas - one-sided trades or collusion. Both conditions do not have to be met by an event to fall into consideration.


  • Options
    #196
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »
    Come now, I know that you know your NFL, and you can't honestly say you think this trade isn't an abomination.

    Ray Rice for Peyton Hillis
    Eli Manning for Andrew Luck
    DeSean Jackson for Justin Blackmon
    Mercedes Lewis for AN Other that will need to be dropped to make room?

    Rice is the #1 rated back on FF Sharks, Hillis is #37
    Manning is rated #7 amongst QBs, Luck is #18
    Jackson is #28, Blackmon is #38
    Lewis, as has been mentioned is waiver wire fodder. (ranked #24 over all TEs)

    Any one of these as a standalone trade would raise eyebrows - all three together is completely ridiculous.

    My knowledge has nothing to do with it. Rule 10 doesn't apply here unless clear collusion has happened. On face value it does seem like a stupid trade yes but its not completely lob sided and rule 10 doesnt apply here it is up to the members of the league to veto it. And unless collusion can be proven the GM cant touch it. My point here is the GM should not abuse his powers and touch it. If the other league members dont agree they can veto it simple as.


  • Options
    #197
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »
    If you only veto a trade where you can prove collusion, then you will not be vetoing any trade at all - how can you prove collusion between teams? You can certainly suspect it, but to prove it?

    By discussing it with both members is a way to start but if we create a lynch mob for every trade we dont agree with also no trades will ever get done because everytime it happens people will cry wolf. Besides obvious collusion is obvious. Obvious stupidity and rookie mistakes are also obvious.
    Rule 10 on the charter outlines two ideas - one-sided trades or collusion. Both conditions do not have to be met by an event to fall into consideration.

    Neither have happened here and you still are missing the point of Rule 10


  • Options
    #198
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    If either side can provide a half reasonable explanation for a trade (I'm not referring to this one), I probably wouldn't veto it. I don't have to agree with it or think it's smart but I don't think I'd veto it if there's any thought behind it.

    Trades with collusion would be somewhat obvious. If the guys knew each other outside of the league, or it was near the end of the season and one guy was pushing for a playoff spot and the other was near the bottom.

    I haven't really given my opinion on this trade, but seeing as how it's week one and I haven't seen anything which says that they know each other irl, it's probably just a bad trade or a bad mistake. I wouldn't veto it but like I said I'm kind of against the veto.


  • Options
    #199
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    Simple matter here:

    - Contact both members and ask them to explain the trade. As Masked man said it will become obvious if it was done in collusion or with the aim to be lob sided.

    - If it is clear collusion and their explanation doesn't fly then Rule 10 kicks in.

    - If not 9 of the 16 members need to veto it if people still dont agree with it.

    It is all that simple. I have been playing this a long time and have seen trades I thought were stupid get passed but just because my opinion of it was bad doesn't make the trade lob sided or done in collusion just means I don't agree.


  • Options
    #200
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    My knowledge has nothing to do with it. Rule 10 doesn't apply here unless clear collusion has happened. On face value it does seem like a stupid trade yes but its not completely lob sided and rule 10 doesnt apply here it is up to the members of the league to veto it. And unless collusion can be proven the GM cant touch it. My point here is the GM should not abuse his powers and touch it. If the other league members dont agree they can veto it simple as.

    In fact a rereading of rule 10 of the charter doen't mention collusion at all - it just has to be an obviosuly onesided trade that makes a team in the league ridiculously strong (which is strange wording). If the trade goes through I would hope it would be looked at under this rule.

    You cannot argue the trade isn't completely lopsided - I just pointed out why it is obviously so. Unless you are arguing that the 3 significant upgrades (and probable everyweek starters) is outweighed by receiving Mercedes Lewis in return.

    Well if it's in the leagues hands then I urge all and any Division 4 owners to take the time to login and veto the trade for the reasons outlined above.


  • Options
    #201
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    By discussing it with both members is a way to start but if we create a lynch mob for every trade we dont agree with also no trades will ever get done because everytime it happens people will cry wolf.

    I'm not advocating a lynch mob. This started with a question about whether the veto rule was in effect and the conversation started from there.

    I, for the most part, wouldn't and haven't vetoed any trades. But this is before a football has been kicked and involves swapping the #1 pick in many drafts for the #37 ranked RB (ADP of 108)
    CoachTO wrote: »
    Neither have happened here and you still are missing the point of Rule 10

    If I'm missing the point, it must be very well hidden. It simply says that onesided trades lead to a ban.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    poldebruin wrote: »
    If I'm missing the point, it must be very well hidden. It simply says that onesided trades lead to a ban.
    poldebruin wrote: »
    "10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently. "

    You have the wrong part in bold iyam.

    10. Anyone who sets out to deliberately mess up a league by signing up and dropping all their players after drafting or offering very obviously one sided trades to make another team too strong will be banned from both the Fantasy Football Forum and the American Football forum as a whole permanently.


  • Options
    #203
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »
    I'm not advocating a lynch mob. This started with a question about whether the veto rule was in effect and the conversation started from there.

    I, for the most part, wouldn't and haven't vetoed any trades. But this is before a football has been kicked and involves swapping the #1 pick in many drafts for the #37 ranked RB (ADP of 108)



    If I'm missing the point, it must be very well hidden. It simply says that onesided trades lead to a ban.


    I have asked the mods to clarify the rule but it seems masked man has pointed out where you are going wrong with said rule.

    I don't see it as one sided and you can sprout rankings all you want. The only stupid part of the trade is Rice for Hillis. But obviously that was taken into consideration by offering Lewis. Again probably doesnt beef the stock but Manning for Luck and Jackson for Blackmon for many would be considered alright including myself. Both Luck and Blackmon touted for big seasons. It still isnt ridiculously lobsided no matter how you want to make it out to be. Not enough for rule 10 to kick in.


  • Options
    #204
    padraig_f
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭padraig_f


    Trade is ridiculously one-sided. All players on one side are better. Ray Rice is a consensus top-3 overall pick, the best player on the other side, Peyton Hillis, was picked at the bottom of the 5th round. The other players involved make it even more lop-sided (Eli Manning clearly better than Luck, DeSean Jackson clearly better than Blackmon). If that's not a ridiculously one-sided trade, I don't know what is.


  • Options
    #205
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    padraig_f wrote: »
    Trade is ridiculously one-sided. All players on one side are better. Ray Rice is a consensus top-3 overall pick, the best player on the other side, Peyton Hillis, was picked at the bottom of the 5th round. The other players involved make it even more lop-sided (Eli Manning clearly better than Luck, DeSean Jackson clearly better than Blackmon). If that's not a ridiculously one-sided trade, I don't know what is.

    Then click the veto button if you dont like it. As masked man pointed out the rules says if someone goes out to deliberately destroy the league with ridiculous trades they will be banned. So in this case it is up to every member to veto the trade. 9/16 required in this case.


  • Options
    #206
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    I don't see it as one sided and you can sprout rankings all you want. The only stupid part of the trade is Rice for Hillis. But obviously that was taken into consideration by offering Lewis. Again probably doesnt beef the stock but Manning for Luck and Jackson for Blackmon for many would be considered alright including myself. Both Luck and Blackmon touted for big seasons. It still isnt ridiculously lobsided no matter how you want to make it out to be. Not enough for rule 10 to kick in.

    Well if the Rice and Hillis part of the trade were removed, then, no I wouldn't be having the conversation. i would still think it was a bad trade, but not a completely one-sided one. But Rice is in the deal, so your point is moot.

    Fantasy football is all about spouting statisitics! The point is, when Golf picked his 3 players @ #2, #61 and #63 ALL of the other players he now so desperately wants were ALL still on the board (80, 81, 112, and 177) In fact, thinking about it this way does lead me to be very suspicious of the trade.


  • Options
    #207
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    Then click the veto button if you dont like it. As masked man pointed out the rules says if someone goes out to deliberately destroy the league with ridiculous trades they will be banned. So in this case it is up to every member to veto the trade. 9/16 required in this case.

    I'm sure any active members will click the veto button, but when you have 11for the actual draft. 2 members are involved in the trade. Getting 9 votes for a veto before the season kicks off is going to be tough work.

    Look, the point is, this is a b*llsh*t trade that will ruin the competitiveness of the league for all of the other owners this year, whether we get 8 vetos or 9.


  • Options
    #208
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »
    I'm sure any active members will click the veto button, but when you have 11for the actual draft. 2 members are involved in the trade. Getting 9 votes for a veto before the season kicks off is going to be tough work.

    Look, the point is, this is a b*llsh*t trade that will ruin the competitiveness of the league for all of the other owners this year, whether we get 8 vetos or 9.

    Ruin the competitiveness of the league? For fook sake thats bs and you know it.

    But simple fact rule 10 is not in breach here and if members cant be bothered to log in and look after their teams or veto the trade it shows they dont care about the trade or the league also. They would have gotten the email, they would have noticed when they sign into NFL.com and they would have noticed if they came in here.

    But my point is the boards.ie member run these leagues as members leagues and have full say and the GM should not be cancelling anything unless the charter has been breached and in this case the charter hasn't.


  • Options
    #209
    CoachTO
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭CoachTO


    poldebruin wrote: »

    Fantasy football is all about spouting statisitics! The point is, when Golf picked his 3 players @ #2, #61 and #63 ALL of the other players he now so desperately wants were ALL still on the board (80, 81, 112, and 177) In fact, thinking about it this way does lead me to be very suspicious of the trade.

    What I suggest is a mod contacts both players and also every player in the league contact them also and explain themselves and if they cant give the Mod a reasonable explanation he then tells the GM to cancel the trade. Their BS will be very apparent if they aim to wreck the league.


  • Options
    #210
    poldebruin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,052 ✭✭✭poldebruin


    CoachTO wrote: »
    What I suggest is a mod contacts both players and also every player in the league contact them also and explain themselves and if they cant give the Mod a reasonable explanation he then tells the GM to cancel the trade. Their BS will be very apparent if they aim to wreck the league.

    Agreed. Again I hope it is an error and much ado about nothing.

    So all they have to do is explain why they would trade Rice #2 for Hillis #80(who is also a backup RB to Jamaal Charles btw) before a ball has been kicked.

    Then explain with a straight face why they would trade eli manning, who threw for nearly 5000 yeards last year, who throws to Hakeem Nicks and Victor Cruz for a rookie qb with very few weapons.

    Finally, explain why they think desean Jackson, with Michael Vick throwing him the ball in the high-powered Phillie Offence will be a worse WR this year than Justin Blackmon who is being powered by Blaine Gabbert in the woeful Jacksonville Offence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    I highly doubt collusion ( which is being implied here), unless they've been real thorough. They were discussing the trade in the draft lobby. I still think it was a mistake. Maybe Julio Jones was meant to be in there or something. So don't carelessly throw around accusations, because I know I wouldn't like to be accused of cheating. Let's give it a rest until one of them tells us what's going on.


Advertisement