Ok, so I tried to post this in the comments section, but it must be too big. It'll be easier to read this way anyway.
Here's what I think are a couple of good examples of why I think trades HAVE to be regulated ESPECIALLY in this league. Though I didn't read David's comment until after I wrote this up, I think this is exactlly what is dangerous about allowing the attitude that it's OK to give up on a season (whether it's season 1 or season 3) and decide to give players away for whatever benefit they will give us in the long run. And as I've stated in previous posts, in general I'm for a more hands off approach to league intervention in trades, but I think it's to the detriment of the league not to take all things into consideration, especially the repercussions of a total laissez faire approach to trades. So here's the examples. (And yes, both are how I actually expect things to go, except for one minor detail.)
#1
It's midway through year 3 of the league. Through good luck and solid play I've positioned myself at the top of the leader board for the big payout and I have a significant lead on everyone else, but it's not completely airtight. Because of sacrifices I've made during the first two seasons, my team is at the bottom this year and out of the playoff picture. Jolly has put up consistent performances in the first 2 years, and poses the only real threat to my crown, but can only overtake me by taking first place that final season. So me being the shrewd player that I am realize that my season is done, but by stacking Paul's team up (he's got the second best team that season) I can make it pretty tough for Jolly to win it all. So I trade all my solid players (no need for keepers anymore) to Paul making his team virtually unbeatable and securing my place as the Grand Poobah. Also, one minor side effect is that in the 2nd round of the playoffs Paul plays John who if he were to win that game would finish at least 3rd overall for the big money, but since I stacked Paul's team, John gets smoked and loses not only season 3, but his chance at the big money as well. Did I knowingly make Paul's team better? Sure, but the ultimate goal wasn't to help Paul, it was to help myself. Just like David's goal isn't to help the team getting Steve Slaton or Brandon Marshall on the cheap, it's to help himself for next year. I know this example is a bit extreme, but I think the essence of what is happening is the same. One team is giving up on trying to win this season and making trades without regard to what effect it has on other teams or the competitive balance of the league, simply because it in some small amount helps his team out.
The second example is a little less extreme, but is the same concept.
Again, I'm in the lead in the league, but not going to make the playoffs. I have a big enough lead that I only need 25 more points to be uncatchable. So I look at the stats, and realize that by playing 4 pass catching receivers for the rest of the year I have a great shot at taking the receiving yds bonus. I have 2 decent WRs, so I decide to scrap Rivers and MJD for whoever the best 2 WRs I can get. I try for the top guys, Moss, Fitz, Johnson & Johnson, but their owners are pretty set at RB and can't afford to give up their best WR options, so I'm stuck settling for 2nd tier guys like Jennings, Steve Smith (Panthers), Colston, or Ochocinco. No slouches by any means, but I'm giving up 300 point producers in Rivers & MJD for 160-180 pt producers in the WRs. But what do I care? I don't have to win, I just need to rack up receiving yards. So I trade Rivers for Jennings (bonus I get to root for a Packer), and MJD for Colston. Equal value? No way, but my ultimate goal is winning it all, not winning this year so I'll "take whatever I can get" just like David and whatever other teams are at the bottom this year and next will do.
I think that as unlikely of scenarios as these are, they get to the heart of the problem. As much as it is ultimately all of our goals to win this whole 3 year thing, it's to the detriment of the quality and competitiveness of the league if we let anything go as far as trades are concerned. I understand the appeal of starting to build for next year and "taking whatever value you can get" for the (quality but not quite keeper) players that aren't going help you in the long run. But I think it's bad for the league, and if we let anything go then it opens the door to more egregious offences later on (especially in year 3 when there is a lot more on the line).
I know that got really long, and I don't know if anyone will actually read it all, but that's what I think. And I didn't even get into anything about how David sacrificing his team with have a significant impact on who makes it into the playoffs. So, that's it for now.
Oh yeah, and the little detail is that I won't need to dump any players year 3 because I'll already have the whole think locked up by then. (In which case my argument still applies because I'll be buying up every Packer no matter the cost. MJD for Driver...anyone?)
The major issue I take with your stance is it's all gray matter. EVERYTHING your saying is subjective. Finally it will boil down to how things play out. Of course Jolly will be against your trade in scenario one, and of course Paul will be for it. It's all about personal interest. How does it effect you? That's all that matters to anyone.
ReplyDeleteAlso, we then have to consider is it illegal to trade 'keeper's?' Is it illegal to trade draft picks? Either one of those have a massive implications on the outcome of the league.
Actually what can be allowed? If you think back on many fantasy leagues, certain trades or tactics are what effect the outcome of leagues. A lot of times you can look back at certain trades made all the difference in the league. Should those be outlawed based on the fact that they have the potential to change the outcome of the league? NO! Of course not! It's absurd to suggest that because something MIGHT change the competitive nature of the league that we should or shouldn't allow it. That's the whole point of trades, or picking up or dropping FA's and/or waivers.
The best defense against collusion and the best way to act in the best interest of the league at whole is for each individual to act in their own personal best interest.
Like I previously stated in my other response, each trade that could be labeled a 'dump trade' should be examined by the commish, to ensure that collusion isn't going on, that the people involved in the trade understand the implications of what they're doing and how it will effect them and the league.
David
I agree with David on this entire issue.
ReplyDeleteand I'm not offering David anything, for any players...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh on this issue. This is the sort of thing that has the potential to completely ruin the fun factor of a league. In my opinion it is far worse than streaming in a baseball league and I wouldn't blame people if it made them want to quit the league altogether.
ReplyDeleteDavid, do you really think it would be fair to trade players to Team A just so they can beat Team B because you need Team B to lose so you can win?? Also, can you explain your first paragraph more specifically because your first two sentences aren't really saying anything.
The dumpoff trade really throws off the competitive balance of the league. And by competitive balance I don't mean "makes one team better than another," I mean that it skews the fair balance in the same way that a collusive trade would even if it is NOT collusive.
If you didn't read the links that Josh posted in the previous blog entry, please do.
By the way, I think this is even more significant in light of the fact that we're all paying $175 for this league.
ReplyDeleteI wrote something massive and could post it. Frustrating. I'll try to concisely sum a few of the key points.
ReplyDeleteJohn, your whole first paragraph is an opinion and there is no possible way for you to defend or for us to attack blanket statements like 'This is the sort of thing that has the potential to completely ruin the fun factor of a league'. It's subjective.
Also John, what you suggest in your second paragraph isn't what's is happening at all. I'm not helping anyone win. Every team has an equal opportunity to make a deal, and I'm not specifically looking to help any one team. The only time that it may be possible would be in the last season of a keeper league, which again I would say in that scenario the trade would be vetoed by the commish on grounds of collusion, or in other words one team helping another team win.
Again, your third paragraph has little objective meaning.
The articles are much the same as your post, the one concrete example that it gave was the 2nd article about a specific keeper league in which someone could give up 5 or 6 or more players for one quality keeper. I say that example is not even possible in our league. For a number of reasons, one, we have 3 keepers in our league, two, think of any situation where it would be beneficial to a team who's really competitive right now to trade a top keeper. Would it be better for Pat to trade Sproles for Steven Jackson and Andre Johnson? NO! Even though they'd outscore him combined. His team would be worse overall. And that's trading two high end keepers for one higher end keeper. It gets worse if I trade lesser non keeper type players, even if it is in greater quantity. Marshall, Garrard, Slaton, Boldin, and Shockey, for Tom Brady actually makes Pat's team worse! His starting line up will not be better than it would have been(from an average projection standpoint) than it was with just Brady. Of course they'll score more points combined than Brady but that doesn't matter.
In baseball there is a statistic called Expected Wins Above Replacement, the value of Brady for Pat's lineup is greater than all those other players combined for Pat's team. Now if Pat had Brady and a bunch of scrubs that wouldn't be true.
I think we need to think about the implications of 'dump trades' and how they will effect our league specifically, I think that if you think about what a free market does, and what competition for a certain good does, which I've made allowance for the average dump trade doesn't seem so dumpy, if many good teams are driving up the price of that dump deal.
Overall the articles aren't really evidence, they're subjective opinions filled with blanket statements that don't mean a whole lot.
Thanks,
David
So basically we shouldn't listen to anyone's opinion?
ReplyDeleteI'm not opposed to trades in general, obviously, I just don't want to see any grotesquely off-balance trades happen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you're pulling my argument to an extreme, I never said we shouldn't listen to anyone's opinions, I do think that there should be SOMETHING concrete to land on for reasoning as to why a trade is rejected.
ReplyDeleteAlso, did you read my post? There will be no grotesquely off-balanced trades. I go into why I believe that will happen in some detail.
David, you are helping someone win. The three remaining teams that you play get automatic Ws because you are deciding to tank your team. If I was a bubble team that didn't make the playoffs because my competition got to play you and I didn't, I would be pissed. And rightly so. Teams are going to get Ws not because of skill and good game play, and not even because of luck, but because you decided to give up on your team this season and quit.
ReplyDeleteYou and Pat keep saying that every argument in opposition to you is simply "subjective". Even if I grant you that it is all subjective, how is your argument not? You think that you should be allowed to dump your team 3/4 of the way through this season in order to start building for next year. What is objective about that?
I can only speak for myself in this, though it seems like others agree (possibly some even stronger than I), but the reason we play fantasy football is because it is fun to compete. We like the challenge of trying to pick up the right players and make good moves in order to win games. We understand and accept that there is an element of chance and luck involved, but what I (we-I think) don't accept is that our fate can be determined not only by our own good/bad play or by the chance/luck that we accept as inherent in FF, but by another player deciding to (purposely or not is irrelevant) lose our season for us. Again, you and Pat want to talk about the example I gave as some far out obscure thing that has no possibility of happening. It is not that unreasonable to think that 1 team might have a good run the first 2 seasons and be in 1st place in points after 2 seasons, but be out of position to make the playoffs in the 3rd. In that instance, under the standard you guys want to apply to trades (it has to be beneficial to both teams in the long term), it would be stupid for that team not to give away all his players to the teams that pose the least threat to his position in the final standings. It is insane to me that we are actually arguing about whether it is OK for a team to, again, GIVE away a player of MJD's caliber simply because it could possibly benefit him in the long run. Is that subjective...sure. But David, can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't be pissed to the max if you got bounced out of the playoffs of year 3 by the 6th best team simply because I loaded them up with all my studs, and you ended up out of the money not only for year 3, but for the big money as well? There is simply no need to have trading rules that are that lax. I understand that your season is over, and you would like to do whatever you can to build for next year, but the reality is that it's not only about you. If you start rebuilding for next year, you affect the rest of the league. Is it fair? No, but it's not fair to the 7 seed that got bounced out of the playoffs because he didn't get to play you or Paul at all over the last 3 weeks either. I understand that it's not convenient for you right now, but the reality is that John is right about there being a "competitive balance" that exists in FF. The biggest thing that keeps that competitive balance is teams trying to win.
I might be more sympathetic to your argument Dave if you were going to be somehow disadvantaged if these types of trades were not allowed. You're already going to get the advantage of an early pick. So not only will you have 3 quality keepers just like everyone else, but you'll also have an early pick. So you're already starting off next season ahead of others. Why do you need more than that?
Ok, I know that's a long rant, but I just don't think that you guys are giving any consideration at all to the possibility of the negative and disruptive situation that this type of trade policy may have. (And in my opinion it is all unnecessary since as I stated above, you're already getting an advantage going into next year.)
"There will be no grotesquely off-balanced trades."
ReplyDeleteIf the goal is to "win long term" instead of being "win today" then there will be grotesquely off-balanced trades. Maybe not this year or next, but in year 3 anyone in the big money picture that is not in the playoff picture would be dumb not to offer "grotesquely off-balanced trades" to the teams that can "help them out in the long term." Which is what is being established as the standard for whether a trade is valid.
The stipulation for there to be no 'grotesquely off-balanced trades' is that in a competitive market the price for a dump trade goes up. If I have 5 solid players that I'm looking to dump for the future, and have multiple suitors for the 5 quality players, I'll receive more for them than I would have had the market been just one person. The best defense against these insane trades is competition and for every team to try to act in their own best interest. I benefit the most being the seller by an open market, and the other teams benefit against the winner of the deal by driving prices up.
ReplyDeleteI understand that for years 1 & 2 (I think it's a bit idealistic, but I understand the argument).
ReplyDeleteMy point is all about year 3. During year 3 there won't be any bidding. It will be me (the non-playoff team) giving away my players to whoever is not a threat in the long run but has a chance to be a spoiler in the playoffs.
That's what my point about collusion was. Collusion is when two teams work together to help one team win. The end goal is to help yourself win true. But a specific goal of yours to achieve your ultimate goal is collusion, attempting to help one team specifically gain an advantage over the rest. This is of course illegal in all leagues. So year three we can take extra precaution over that situation by realizing that colluding is going on. Year three is different than the first two years because the team knocked out of the playoffs is specifically helping a specific team win(in order to achieve the goal of making one team lose).
ReplyDeleteI think that's clear, and we can agree that's against the rules, however, that's not this situation.
David
But Dave, the result of what you are doing now is exactly the same as what I'm doing in year 3. You are helping one team get better at the detriment of your team now with the only benefit to you coming in the form of future returns. The only difference is that I admit that I am helping the team I'm trading players on the cheap to. I just don't see how intent makes any difference. I'm much more concerned with the "what" than the "why". And in both cases the "what" is that one team unfairly benefits from another teams concern for the big picture.
ReplyDeleteCollusion is all about intent in a fantasy football league. In this year, I'm helping the team who offers the best deal for me. In year three you are trying to help a specific team albeit for a personal goal, the difference is your goal is to help another team achieve victory.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd if all that matters is the 'what', we should do league votes for trades, and get a 2/3 majority on if we think they're fair or not. Because if the why doesn't matter, than it doesn't matter if you believe that player X will have a better season from here on out than player Y, all that matters is what the consensus of what 'fair' is. Also, if the only thing that matters is the what, we should all do concensus drafting, to achieve an optimally fair league, Pat would have never been allowed to draft Matt Hasselbeck or Lawrence Maroney when he did, because most of us believed those were poor selections, thus having a negative impact on the 'competitive balance' of the league. I can go through and list all the selections that I believed were poor at the time of the draft, and I would bet that most of them were picks that could have been better placed. I even thought some of my own picks were a bit premature immediately after the draft. All these things affect that competitive balance, at some point we need to let those who choose well, and those who execute well and those who trade well do just those things. If you can convince me why the deal you are putting out there is better than the deal John puts out there, you should reap a reward. If you are willing to make bigger risks, which dump trades are MASSIVE risks, lets not pretend that those who make dump trades automatically win leagues, should have larger rewards, and likewise have larger falls. Each one of you has the opportunity to do something. Play into the market, and affect how things go.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it's a bit idealistic to believe that the market will be so pure that the trades will end up coming even most of the time, there will still be lopsided trades, not as drastic as you seem to think, but I'll acknowledge that. I also think that you are playing up horribly evil scenario's that may not even be possible with strong basic rules against collusion and a truly competitive league.
Again, this is a topic we can go around forever. And it's just that an opinion. It's like you're a liberal and I'm a conservative, you're making very liberal arguments on the 'what if's' of a free market economy. Laissez-faire Josh, a free market will govern itself. :)
Hey buddy, I may be talking about fairness (I'm not really even talking about that), but you're the one that sounds like a liberal with all the exaggerations: "if this is what you want, then we might as well just...". There's a huge difference between a little regulation in trades to keep a competitive balance, and having a "consensus draft". In fact, now that I go back and look at it, I don't see the correlation you are trying to make at all. I'm not sure how you guys pull from what I'm saying a desire to completely level the playing field. I've read (and written) everything I wrote, and I don't remember ever saying anything even close to this. Don't you think it's a little different to say that "Every team should keep on trying to win til the end of the season so that the *GASP* competitive balance stays intact." and "We need to completely level the playing field so that everyone ends the season 7-6 with equal players." Who said anything about absolute equality? But yes, in a game like Fantasy Football, I think we should (as much as possible) try to achieve equality of opportunity (Be objective now...don't judge the term by it's political connotations.) And part of that means facing (in general) the same type of competition throughout the year.
ReplyDeleteYou're a smart guy Dave, I don't understand how you can't see that tanking a team and giving free Ws to teams that should have to earn them at the most important point of the season is not a good thing for competition. And negatively impacts the quality and purity of the league.
"dump trades are MASSIVE risks."
How is this a risk what-so-ever to you? The players you are dumping are of ZERO value to you. You are out of the playoff mix, and you won't be keeping them. There is zero risk for you in this transaction.
Real quick, there isn't risk for the dumper, but there is risk for the one who is looking to get the boost. I said that because you pull off a dump trade doesn't automatically mean you win the league. Please read :).
ReplyDeleteAlso, you speak as though luck is something that shouldn't be allowed to affect the league. Wally, Pat's Dad, and John may get an easier week. They may win, they may not, but there chances are improved if I get rid of quality players. GOOD FOR THEM! How lucky. That's part of the sports, and fantasy sports and life.
It's not fair that some people get easier opponents than others based on where they fall in the schedule? Then what about specifically my team, with Leon Washington being injured. The teams I played week 1-6 saw an average of over 10 points a week against them than the opponents I played weeks 7-10(I exclude week 6 because he was a dead spot on my roster). It's just lucky that Paul got to play me without Washington. Had Washington been injured all year, Psycho Sasquatch MIGHT have another win, maybe. Or, had Washington never been injured I very well could have 2 MORE wins. Luck of the draw is a part of it. It's just a fact. In fantasy, or reality, we try to position ourselves as best we can based on what is known. What is unknown can obviously have massive affects on us and those around us. But we can't decide we want to compensate for those things.
It's just good luck for John, Wally and Pat's dad, and it's just bad luck if you had to play me earlier in the year(especially with Washington when I was 3-3, almost 4-3...). Tough. It's a part of life, and should be a part of fantasy. That's how the cookie crumbles and it should stay that way.
I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I think it attacks the integrity of the game at large if we decide to put our hands in this. We can raise questions about everyone's decision making. We can challenge things that aren't against any rules based on 'the competitive balance' of the league. Things we don't like. When I made the point about consensus drafting, I was simply following logic. If someone makes a TERRIBLE selection in the draft, it has the potential to ruin the league and have positive and negative effects on those drafting around him, it will change both how fun it is and how competitive it is, considering that this should be a competitive league. How can we guard against it? To ensure the best competitive balance. To ensure the most fun?
ReplyDeleteOne more thought, because this is an incentive laden league. With side bonus', sometimes the strategy I want to play isn't the best strategy to win, IE: If interceptions is the category, I may be more likely to want to start S, or CB's. If rushing yards is the category than I may be more likely to play a RB than a QB in my flex. Those aren't the best moves to help win the league. But they help attain other goals. How should that be handled? Should you have to go with the highest projected starting lineup? From here on out, I want to win rushing yards or receiving yards, so week in and week out I'll start 3 RB's or 4 WR's even though that doesn't give me the best chance to win. Is that illegal?
ReplyDeleteIf you've read my posts, I've said multiple time that luck *is* an aspect of fantasy football.
ReplyDeletePlease read ;)
We all accept that there will be some imbalance involved in FF. Like I said pretty clearly, no one is looking for complete equality. (And your "logical conclusion" is actually what logicians call a "slippery slope FALLACY") What I (we) want is a continued emphasis on competativeness throughout the season. I'm pretty sure you would be upset if you were in a regular league battling for the last playoff spot, and the you lost not because the other guy had the better team but because his opponent gave up and left 3 injured players starting the game. Please be honest about this, and don't say "good for him". I can pretty much guarantee that wouldn't be your response. The fact that this is a keeper league doesn't change that. It doesn't make it better for the guy on the losing end of this situation for you to say..."but I was planning for the future". Is that subjective. Sure. Does that make it wrong? Uh...No. If pretty much everyone in the league (and probably most leagues) thinks the above situation shouldn't happen and can reasonably be avoided, then it should be avoided.
You keep on making straw man arguments about luck and equality and concensus drafts that don't at all address the real issue. Which is "should you be allowed to do *whatever* is in the best interest of your team despite how it affects the rest of the league". I say no you shouldn't. It isn't that much of a sacrifice for you to keep playing the year out in order to keep a certain balance to the league. And if it is just too much to bear, then I've posted what I think is a perfectly reasonable option that incentivizes you keeping playing and makes it not such a huge burden.
And lastly, I think it's extremely hypocritical that you would think that you should be able to do whatever it takes to get ahead including ruining the season for someone else, but then turn around and say that someone doing the same in year 3 should not be allowed because it is collusion. Have you thought at all about why collusion is a bad thing? If you don't respond to anything else I would like you to at least answer that.
We need to define collusion . My definition for fantasy sports is when 1 team works for another team to achieve victory. That's specifically what would be happening in year 3. That's not what would happen in years 1 and 2. Plain and simple. Years one and two would be a competitive open market, where there would be no preference to any given team other than the one that offers the most beneficial deal. That in no way whatsoever is hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteAgain, luck of the draw is a part of the league. I'm in no way trying to ruin anyones league, and I am in no way trying to help anyone other than myself. Of course everything we do will effect everyone else. If someone makes a poor trade, although legal, it will effect everyone. Some positively and some negatively. There are externalities to all the decisions we make, and simply because there are POSSIBLE playoff implications doesn't change how we should handle fantasy sports. My goal isn't to ruin anything and isn't to help anyone other than myself. Of course what we do effects people, it should effect people. Big deal.
Of course I wouldn't be happy if I was a bubble team that MIGHT have missed the playoffs because of a dump trade. I'd be angry, not at any person in particular, but because that's how the chips fell. It would be annoying. But that's how things should be. Would I want to blame someone for me missing the playoffs? OF COURSE I would. Does that mean it's that person's 'fault' I missed the playoffs, OF COURSE NOT. You didn't make it because someone else had a better record, made better decisions, and finally got a little lucky, that's not inherently wrong or evil. It is. That's all. We should let it be.
Also, what about from here on out. I WILL NOT PLAY my highest projected team week to week. I WILL NOT. What I will do is start the team that I believe will give me the most rushing yards per week. It's strategy.
ReplyDeleteNone of this was defined as wrong before the season, even though EACH AND EVERY one of us had an opportunity to clarify.
Also, what about from here on out. I WILL NOT PLAY my highest projected team week to week. I WILL NOT. What I will do is start the team that I believe will give me the most rushing yards per week. It's strategy.
ReplyDeleteNone of this was defined as wrong before the season, even though EACH AND EVERY one of us had an opportunity to clarify.
"It is. That's all. We should let it be."
ReplyDeleteYou keep making statements like this as if it is simply a cut and dry issue. You should be able to make whatever trade you want to because that is some law of the universe. I just don't get your attitude that this is just how it should be. I have actually offered arguments for why I think the league is worse off with the free for all that you are suggesting. You have only responded with either exaggerations, straw men, or "it just is."
I didn't ask for a definition of collusion. I want to know why collusion is a bad thing.
Collusion is a bad thing because it's cheating. Using double the resources against everyone else to win. Gaining an advantage by working with another person in the league to achieve a unified goal. That's why collusion is bad. Making an opportunity that isn't available to everyone.
ReplyDeleteI think that you've offered a few articles that offer nothing applicable to this league. I've countered your arguments with my own. When you say trades will be massively lopsided, I explain why they won't be. When you say that it gives someone an unfair advantage, I say that's part of the game in general. Furthermore I have offered some counterpoints on why it should be left as is, because it's simply a part of the game. Competitive balance is thrown off in every league, as it should be, by dumb luck, by poor play, by strong play. Theses are some of the things that can help define winners and losers.
Which arguments of mine have been straw men? I have used specific examples to expound on theoretical issues? I've raised my own questions as to what should be done if we do decide that competitive balance is an idea that should be upheld. Because that's such a gray area, I think it's imperative to tackle these issues if we want to move away from a laissez-faire system. We need to think about some of the ideas that I'm posing.
It's annoying that I've posted so many times in specific response to your arguments and you've not addressed any one of them. I've made many suppositions, and used actual examples from this league, and it's gone unaddressed. I've raised many points that have gone ignored, or swept under a blanket statement like 'straw man' or that are dismissed as exaggerations. But I think that I make strong cases about why luck plays heavily into fantasy sports. And why it should continue. That's why I can say things as if they are just 'laws of the universe'. Because they seemingly are. Poor trades are made. Good trades are made that turn out poorly. It throws things off. There are teams that over-perform, there are teams that under-perform, injuries happen. Luck is a part of the game. Period.
"because it's simply a part of the game"
ReplyDeleteLOL!!!
Sorry, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here because there is no reasoning with arguments like this. Who says it's part of the game? You? Well, I say it's not. So who's right?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLOL!!!
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't know any better I would have thought you just picked a random sentence in my post and tried to argue with it.
Take that sentence in context of the paragraph. What is my post about? What does that sentence mean with in my post? LUCK IS A PART OF THE GAME. IT JUST IS. I can make sweeping statements like that because they are true.
I'd like to hear you try to make an argument saying that luck simply isn't apart of the game or how it shouldn't be apart of the game.
Good luck!
This is the first part of the statement, "Furthermore I have offered some counterpoints on why it should be left as is"
ReplyDeleteI take "left as is" to mean, why the trade policy should be left as is. I understand that before that you were talking about luck being part of the game, but if you are saying luck should continue to be part of the game and that is what should be left "as is" then you're making a pointless argument as no one is suggesting that luck isn't a part of the game or that there is anything what-so-ever that we can do to change that. Certain aspects of this game involve luck. Injuries happen, trades don't work out, we drop players that end up taking off. And to this I say...SO WHAT!!!
All of this has nothing to do with the argument at hand. You can't control if a guy has an injury. You can't control if a trade ends up to work out in the other guys favor. You can't control what players are busts, or bargains. You CAN control whether or not you dump your team and give wins to the remaining teams that you play.
Your argument seems to boil down to "because there is already luck involved in FF, we should be able to do whatever we want (as long as it's not collusion)." I'm not being sarcastic, I think that is really how simple your argument is(in regards to the issue of luck). Maybe I'm slow, but I just don't get what your point is.
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteJosh, you are missing the point. If every team is acting in their own best interests, externalities will occur, they will effect some people negatively and others positively. SO WHAT! I'm sorry that it will hurt some and help some. However, it's not wrong or evil if that occurs. No one is working specifically or intentionally to hurt or help anyone and unfortunately these things happen.
ReplyDeleteAm I saying that I'd be happy to be a bubble team that misses the playoffs because someone else got
'lucky'? No! I'd be upset. Would I be thrilled to be a team that got 'lucky'? Sure, I guess if it helped me get into the playoffs I would.
All I'm saying is that things like this, decisions made, poor decisions, great decisions, lucky decisions all effect us. Nobody, those looking to make dump trades included, are looking to 'screw' anyone over. It's fair and should be allowed.
I'll leave this topic to rest now.
Thanks,
David