Commish question regarding a trade (1 Viewer)

[DoubleG]

Gimme a break. Real juries in real trials make life and death decisions on someone's intent without the aid of telepathy. There's no reason why fantasy sports are so different or important that you need a higher standard.

If it's a borderline call you don't get involved. This is an example of something that is not borderline.

Wow. Take your hobby too seriously much?

 

[Guest]

Gimme a break. Real juries in real trials make life and death decisions on someone's intent without the aid of telepathy. There's no reason why fantasy sports are so different or important that you need a higher standard.

If it's a borderline call you don't get involved. This is an example of something that is not borderline.

Wow. Take your hobby too seriously much?

I would actually ask you the same. I'm the one saying that it's pretty clear this guy isn't trying to win so put the kobosh on the trade. It's you guys who are saying that unless you have ESP you don't know the owner's intent and so can't deny the trade as if any evidence less than that just won't cut it. Even though lesser evidence is used to figure out intent for things that are actually important all the time. I.e., intent by inference is fine for murder trials but hey, we need more if we're talking about trading a Bengals TE in some random fantasy league because in some chance in the universe where this TE scores 300 fantasy points, denying this owner this trade could cost him the championship.

 

[Chaka]

So "the breaks" in a league should include the commissioner acting as team co-pilot for everyone? Because when you make a decision for them that costs them the title...that's the role you played and it cost them through no fault of their own. I think it would be nice if "the breaks" involved someone running their own team without a peanut gallery making decisions that cost them money. But maybe it's more fun to run 12 teams than just one.

In any case, if a disallowed trade cost a person the title, "that's the breaks" wouldn't be a satisfying answer. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They made the right call, tried to help their team and another owner (who couldn't even guide their own team to a title) stepped in and cost them money. You don't see anything wrong with that?

And I disagree that an investigation isn't needed. The OP is just another owner with an opinion. Maybe the trader has a valid reason for wanting that player. It would seem that their side of the story would be the least amount of due diligence a commissioner would want to perform if they're going to nix a trade...especially if it would be the first trade they've ever nixed.

You act like the only thing being decided is if whether or not the trade is fair. There's another decision being made as to whether or not this guy is really trying to win. That's where you guys get all tripped up in the whole collusion thing. Collusion is just one way that someone would try to not be trying to win (and only in a specific kind of collusion at that). If they're not trying to win and are just trying to trade for Bengals, I'll shed no tears in killing their trade.I'd rather protect 11 owners who care rather than 1 who doesn't.

Unfortunately making that determination requires telepathy. Does that come with the MFL Commish Startup Kit?

Gimme a break. Real juries in real trials make life and death decisions on someone's intent without the aid of telepathy. There's no reason why fantasy sports are so different or important that you need a higher standard.If it's a borderline call you don't get involved. This is an example of something that is not borderline.

Yeah because innocent people never get sent to jail by juries. People take this hobby far too seriously when they start with the 'competitive balance' routine. Do you think the commish somehow knows what is truly fair, particularly before the NFL season even starts?

And are you saying that a roster of Palmer, Benson, Ocho, T.O., Gresham, Nugent & the Cinci D couldn't win you a lot of games?

Just because he likes his home team doesn't mean he is tanking.

 

[Chaka]

Gimme a break. Real juries in real trials make life and death decisions on someone's intent without the aid of telepathy. There's no reason why fantasy sports are so different or important that you need a higher standard.

If it's a borderline call you don't get involved. This is an example of something that is not borderline.

Wow. Take your hobby too seriously much?

I would actually ask you the same. I'm the one saying that it's pretty clear this guy isn't trying to win so put the kobosh on the trade. It's you guys who are saying that unless you have ESP you don't know the owner's intent and so can't deny the trade as if any evidence less than that just won't cut it. Even though lesser evidence is used to figure out intent for things that are actually important all the time. I.e., intent by inference is fine for murder trials but hey, we need more if we're talking about trading a Bengals TE in some random fantasy league because in some chance in the universe where this TE scores 300 fantasy points, denying this owner this trade could cost him the championship.

There is a reason that juries are comprised of 12 people and not one.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

So "the breaks" in a league should include the commissioner acting as team co-pilot for everyone? Because when you make a decision for them that costs them the title...that's the role you played and it cost them through no fault of their own. I think it would be nice if "the breaks" involved someone running their own team without a peanut gallery making decisions that cost them money. But maybe it's more fun to run 12 teams than just one. In any case, if a disallowed trade cost a person the title, "that's the breaks" wouldn't be a satisfying answer. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. They made the right call, tried to help their team and another owner (who couldn't even guide their own team to a title) stepped in and cost them money. You don't see anything wrong with that?And I disagree that an investigation isn't needed. The OP is just another owner with an opinion. Maybe the trader has a valid reason for wanting that player. It would seem that their side of the story would be the least amount of due diligence a commissioner would want to perform if they're going to nix a trade...especially if it would be the first trade they've ever nixed.

You act like the only thing being decided is if whether or not the trade is fair. There's another decision being made as to whether or not this guy is really trying to win. That's where you guys get all tripped up in the whole collusion thing. Collusion is just one way that someone would try to not be trying to win (and only in a specific kind of collusion at that). If they're not trying to win and are just trying to trade for Bengals, I'll shed no tears in killing their trade.I'd rather protect 11 owners who care rather than 1 who doesn't.

Not sure if you meant this for someone else, because I didn't mention collusion in any of my posts in this thread. I agree with you that owners have to be trying to win (I said owners need to be working in their team's best interests), which I why I suggested discussing it with that owner directly. That level of due diligence would determine whether or not the person is trying to win.I was asking what compensation the owner would receive if, in the course of trying to win, he makes a trade that is nixed by a short-sighted commissioner who isn't capable of seeing the value in the trade. In that instance the commissioner, who is supposed to be running his own team, has decided to co-pilot this other team and say "Nah, I don't think that's a good trade for us." In truth, there is no "us." The commissioner wasn't invited to help run the team, yet he is making a decision that overrides the owner and ends up costing that team the title. What's the commissioner going to say: "Sorry man, I guess I'm not good at running your fantasy team, either?" That's why an investigation is necessary. If the owner can't explain why the trade makes their team better, they're not playing the game. I agree that all owner need to be trying to win, but I don't think a commissioner should try to discern that without actually asking. I don't see what purpose that serves.

 

[Chaka]

Another critical element missing from the comparison to jury trials is an outcome that warrants a trial in the first place.

In the case of jury trials a crime has to be committed to necessitate a trial. In this situation no only does the commish need to discern intent but he also must prognosticate upon events that have not even occurred.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I see no reason whatsoever to disallow this trade.