Commissioner Ruling Advice

[Sour Masher]

Cry about it. I stand behind what i said with my REAL name, unlike most of you. For those of you suggesting I should allow ANY trade because its a free league is just stupid. Just because its free doesnt mean that it shouldnt have rules in play to protect competition. Granted, this PARTICULAR trade isnt Trout for Souza, and I should have used a more thorough screening process in hind sight, but its clearly one sided. Thanks for your HELPFUL feedback Masher

I do try to provide helpful feedback as often as possible. I think I am providing helpful feedback to you when I say that you are being rude in this instance (at least it is helpful if you intend to continue posting here using that screen name and expect to continue to get feedback). As is often the case with folks on the internet, I doubt you'd be so rude to the folks here trying to give you helpful feedback if you were speaking with us face-to-face. At least, I hope that would be the case, but maybe you are just a jerk. Or maybe you are just having a bad day, and fail to realize there is a difference between you disagreeing with posters and you insulting them.

[Sour Masher]

Anyway, I'm with the camp of not vetoing trades...it WILL drive you crazy as a commish, and some deals are fairer than you as a commish might think. I also lost a league title to what I was convinced was a lop-sided deal, but as commissioner, I didn't do anything about it, because I shouldn't have. I know both guys were on the up and up, and one valued prospects over established guys. that's the way the deal when down and I lived with it just fine.

The obvious exception, as you imply Horns, is when there is evidence that the deal is not on the up and up. If there is collusion involved, then vetoing is the way to go, but I agree with you and others that trying to govern subjective stuff like player evaluation among well-informed, well-intended adults acting in earnest to improve their teams now or in the future is not the job of the commish. Of course, the league as a whole is free to voice concerns about such deals, especially when it is only two owners continuing to operate in their own little trade bubble, but vetos should be reserved for collusion, or to reverse hijacked accounts in cases when disgruntled WAGs trade your Trout for someone's Fister .

[jamesfredette]

LOL...well, THAT took an unexpected turn. Alright gents, no harm no foul...let's go about this civilly, you know, like I always do.

Youre right. I have, even in my own opinion, gotten a little out of hand here. I apologize Sean for the unnecessary poke and prod. It was out of line. I know not all trades are "fair", as thats a relative term. Like I said before, I agree with you all that it would be wrong of me to veto. And I agree that I was a little more disrespectful than needed. Im not going to speak for others, but I dont think im a jerk. Im passionate, yeah, probably a little too much, but i wasnt really trying to insult anyone by saying they were wrong. Its what we do here, and its just how I feel about those players I guess. Looking back, I started my sentence poorly and aggressively and I shouldnt have.

I am seriously done here now though. I wish i could just delete the thread

[Sour Masher]

Youre right. I have, even in my own opinion, gotten a little out of hand here. I apologize Sean for the unnecessary poke and prod. It was out of line. I know not all trades are "fair", as thats a relative term. Like I said before, I agree with you all that it would be wrong of me to veto. And I agree that I was a little more disrespectful than needed. Im not going to speak for others, but I dont think im a jerk. Im passionate, yeah, probably a little too much, but i wasnt really trying to insult anyone by saying they were wrong. Its what we do here, and its just how I feel about those players I guess. Looking back, I started my sentence poorly and aggressively and I shouldnt have.

I am seriously done here now though. I wish i could just delete the thread

Well, even though you might not read my reply, I am thankful for your apology, and get where you are coming from. I too have been frustrated by what I consider lop-sided trades--especially when owners fail to shop their players around. I get that it can disrupt the fun other owners have in a league if they feel they are fighting an unfair fight against other owners who are basically trading coal for diamonds. I just don't think it is the commish's job to veto those deals, absence evidence of shady dealing. Call them out, have the whole league address such behavior--sure. But actually reverse the deals as commish--I just think that way lies madness, as others have said (and it is weird we are disagreeing here, because it seems like we are all on the same page with this).

[swampdragon]

I thought your name was an homage to never was basketball player.

[Hodor]

Is James really Johnny 'make it rain' Manziel ?

[jamesfredette]

Is James really Johnny 'make it rain' Manziel ?

No, but I do make it rain on your mom. dolla dolla bills yall

[overkill94]

You do realize that Hanley and Cueto were drafted way ahead of Cain and Carrasco last year, right? I realize a lot has changed since then but we're not talking about guys who have never had success before.

[Sour Masher]

You do realize that Hanley and Cueto were drafted way ahead of Cain and Carrasco last year, right? I realize a lot has changed since then but we're not talking about guys who have never had success before.

I like the Cain, Carrasco side of the deal a lot better, but while arguing developed from the specific deal, the real issue was one we all seem to agree on--vetoing should be reserved for collusion or obvious cases where a guy is just trolling the league (and this deal doesn't seem like either). The merits of the deal really aren't even in play if we all agree on that premise. Vetoing aside, I do agree that an intervention of some kind--like everyone letting the guy know they'd appreciate it if he shopped his players, and if he didn't act so fast/rashly--is in order when a guy makes for panic deals in the first two weeks.

[kawaise]

You do realize that Hanley and Cueto were drafted way ahead of Cain and Carrasco last year, right? I realize a lot has changed since then but we're not talking about guys who have never had success before.

I was thinkin' the same thing. IF healthy (and playing in that ballpark) I can see Cueto having a similar season to Carrasco. I know it's a BIG if (health) for Cueto. I'd rather have Cain than Hanley, but there are so many variables that go into a trade (mainly team balance and the plain fact that one just might have a man-crush on a player).

Yes, the Cain and Carrasco side of the deal MAY be better, but I also have to think that Fiers will pitch better than Fister (Fister was on the Cain/Carrasco side of the deal).

You made the right choice in letting this trade go through. Sometimes it also helps to not look at a trade immediately before analyzing it ... give it a couple days to (especially) help settle your (self-professed) passions.

[jamesfredette]

I was thinkin' the same thing. IF healthy (and playing in that ballpark) I can see Cueto having a similar season to Carrasco. I know it's a BIG if (health) for Cueto. I'd rather have Cain than Hanley, but there are so many variables that go into a trade (mainly team balance and the plain fact that one just might have a man-crush on a player).

Yes, the Cain and Carrasco side of the deal MAY be better, but I also have to think that Fiers will pitch better than Fister (Fister was on the Cain/Carrasco side of the deal).

You made the right choice in letting this trade go through. Sometimes it also helps to not look at a trade immediately before analyzing it ... give it a couple days to (especially) help settle your (self-professed) passions.

You sir, are correct.

[GwynnInTheHall]

No, but I do make it rain on your mom. dolla dolla bills yall

She's dead so shoot your dust :P

[Ken]

The record shows... that you are wrong. Im not going to do anything about it, but it is NOT even. Fiers, Fister, wash. Kipnis, Wong, wash. Cain, Hanley, NOT a wash. Cueto, Carrasco, NOT a wash. If they were even players for the last two, one sides wouldnt be moving up 4 or 5 rounds on 2 of his players. Anyway im done in this thread

If you even have an inkling to veto that kind of trade, you probably should not be a commish. It is ridiculous that you'd even consider it. Everyone has different player valuations in mind. I've seen some that have Hanley above Cain for rest of season projections right now.

If we all had the same valuations this game would be pretty boring, right? Lets just agree to a projection system and cancel the season!

[jamesfredette]

If you even have an inkling to veto that kind of trade, you probably should not be a commish. It is ridiculous that you'd even consider it. Everyone has different player valuations in mind. I've seen some that have Hanley above Cain for rest of season projections right now.

If we all had the same valuations this game would be pretty boring, right? Lets just agree to a projection system and cancel the season!

Hey thanks Ken! The thread defnitely wasnt buried and dead. I'm gonna dismember my league midseason and quit fantasy altogether! Good looks

[Ken]

Hey thanks Ken! The thread defnitely wasnt buried and dead. I'm gonna dismember my league midseason and quit fantasy altogether! Good looks

Do you do anything other than troll? You asked a terrible question and several people tried to give you advise and you told them off. I think it's quite clear who the problem is here, and it is certainly not the people in your league.

I provided you with an additional perspective including information about rankings from some people who are a lot smarter than you, and you ignored it. Why did you bother asking a question if you don't want to see intelligent answers?