AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 07/08: Draft II

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't want to re-open an old issue but since you guys brought it up-- I have a question for NYE

Assessment of the equality of what is passing back and forth in a trade is generally a pretty subjective exercise but

1. Was there anything in the circumstances that led you to believe that the person who traded to acquire Huet was acting in anything other than what THAT PERSON perceived as the best interest of their team

To me this is literally the only question that matters. The fact that some people-- ie even 99% of people would think the trade unequal is irrelevant-- And it even turned out that the person that traded for Huet was right-- He played great BUt if Huet stank up the joint from then on, my analysis would be the same. If the two traders want to trade and they are not INTENTIONALLY weakening one team to strengthen another, that would be ok with me.

Considering both players were playing awesomely at the time, and Huet was guaranteed a starting goaltender position, there really isn't any room to say there was malicious intent. The only risk was Kariya was more established than Huet, but Huet was perhaps (at the time) the hottest goaltender in the league.

I'm certain nye will argue that I was trying to destroy a poor last place team, but that's simply not the case. I needed scoring and had goaltenders, he was in the opposite situation.

Some time after nye started the ****storm, the other party in the trade did mention something about "already losing, might as well help a winner". As soon as that comment was made, I did undo the trade because that comment indicates he did not make it in the best interest of his team.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
Edit: this post is in response to Jonny posting one minute after I asked if anyone had PM'd him yet

Wow, you are quick!



* Sparrowhawk

Just a fluke thing-- I HAD PMed him within 10 minutes of making my pick

[Flubber]

Oh and can someone please provide me some information about how or when yahoo updates position designations--

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher


Considering both players were playing awesomely at the time, and Huet was guaranteed a starting goaltender position, there really isn't any room to say there was malicious intent. The only risk was Kariya was more established than Huet, but Huet was perhaps (at the time) the hottest goaltender in the league.

I'm certain nye will argue that I was trying to destroy MrBoo's poor last place team, but that's simply not the case. I needed scoring and had goaltenders, he was in the opposite situation.

Asher-- I knew what your position would be -- but I really wanted to hear if NYE saw any of that bad intent

From what I hear and see hear-- Asher knew Boo would face a goalie crunch and used that well-- Fair Ball IMHO-- MrBoo was in goalie trouble and picked up a good one at a price HE could live with

But I want to hear it from NYE-- since if bad intent is absent, that means he wants to protect weak managers from making a ``bad deal``-- IMHO that is not proper in any league that allows trades

To me its every man for himself except for fradulent or abusive behavior

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't want to re-open an old issue but since you guys brought it up-- I have a question for NYE

Assessment of the equality of what is passing back and forth in a trade is generally a pretty subjective exercise but

1. Was there anything in the circumstances that led you to believe that the person who traded to acquire Huet was acting in anything other than what THAT PERSON perceived as the best interest of their team

To me this is literally the only question that matters. The fact that some people-- ie even 99% of people would think the trade unequal is irrelevant-- And it even turned out that the person that traded for Huet was right-- He played great BUt if Huet stank up the joint from then on, my analysis would be the same. If the two traders want to trade and they are not INTENTIONALLY weakening one team to strengthen another, that would be ok with me.

TBH, Flubber, I'm not even sure the other player accepted the trade or not.

The ****-storm began as soon as the offer was made within 24 hours of picking Huet up. I concluded that Huet being picked up was clearly not with the intention of improving the team that picked him up. I was of the opinion that it was to coerce a top skater out of the other manager.

The rules of Yahoo came into play. "you are not to manage your roster in such a way as to interfere with another manager" or something like that.

[Asher]

Yes, this was where notyoueither concluded I was breaking Yahoo's rules. A few other choice accusations were made, also.

As luck would have it:

"you are not to manage your roster in such a way as to interfere with another manager"

also applies to your practice of constantly picking up and dropping players to waivers to get 1 game out of them. Indeed, using this rule you're applying, any time someone picks up a player from the free agent pool they are interfering with other managers (as they cannot pick them up). First come, first served -- deal with that.

Just admit the only reason you made the ****storm was because you knew it'd better my team in its weakest place, and I'd challenge you for the lead. That's what it was all about. You went from one accusation to another in search of popular support: either I was colluding with MrBoo, or I was breaking the Yahoo rules(!!!), or I was "taking advantage" of someone in their first pool.

In hindsight, it's clear that none of the above were true. A precise reason player-driven vetoes are ridiculous.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and can someone please provide me some information about how or when yahoo updates position designations--

No. It's sort of a mystery for all of us. One thing, they normally don't til after the season starts.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by snoopy369
If NYE saw Huet as a poor goalie with no chance of playing more than a handful of games, being traded for a superstar, then sure, it seems abusive.

That's how I saw it. Well, not poor, but not someone who would take a Vezina & Hart winner's job away from him.

Do you want the managers to have a vote on this sort of thing? That is the question.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's how I saw it. Well, not poor, but not someone who would take a Vezina & Hart winner's job away from him.

Do you want the managers to have a vote on this sort of thing? That is the question.

I don't even know why we're still talking about it. We have previous cases in this very league where some managers clearly don't see the value in a trade that would've been beneficial for both teams.

Why are we still discussing using this practice? As long as any trade is made between two consenting GMs, it's valid as far as I'm concerned. The only exception is collusion or one team having a firesale.

[notyoueither]

I would like it to be clear before the season begins what the rules will be.

Is it anything goes? No? OK, what's out of bounds and what should be considered by the managers at large with an option to veto.

It will be a more peaceful season if we spend some time on it now, IMO.

[Asher]

I think you're making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Anything goes, there would be no veto in the pool. Trades are made between consenting GMs.

We'll establish a simple rule: Under no circumstances in this league will any "firesales" occur. If they do, we can resolve this through the commish without the need for league voting. We can discuss it on the forums, and if it's determined a team is trading away their talent for nothing, those trades can be undone and the players involved sanctioned (disqualified from competing again in the fantasy league, not counting them in our official rankings, etc).

Using the veto system is open for abuse, as our league has shown.

[notyoueither]

To be clear, the issue I argued at the time was that Asher should be forced to drop Huet and let Boo have him for free.

I would not have argued that had Asher simply kept the goalie, or proposed a trade down the line.

The thing that provoked controversy, and I was not alone, was picking Huet up and immediately offering him in trade for the best skater from the team with Theodore as the backbone in the crease.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
To be clear, the issue I argued at the time was that Asher should be forced to drop Huet and let Boo have him for free.

I would not have argued that had Asher simply kept the goalie, or proposed a trade down the line.

The thing that provoked controversy, and I was not alone, was picking Huet up and immediately offering him in trade for the best skater from the team with Theodore as the backbone in the crease.

How can you even justify this given your actions in these pools?

You can pick up players, use them for a day, then dump them. But when another player picks up a player they have rules they have on how they can use them? Since when? I would've been happy keeping Huet (and was, in the end), but given Boo's situation I thought I'd try trading for Kariya to help us both.

You cycle through dozens of players each season, dumping them after a game to rot on the waiver wire so no one else can use them during that week. Then you have the balls to get all high and mighty on how other people utilize the free agent pool?

You can't be serious. Once you pick up a free agent, you can do what you want with them. That's what YOU decided when you defended your actions in schedule whoring last season, so don't you dare back down on that now when it suits you. You can't have it both ways.

[notyoueither]

Yes, Asher.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

I am trying to find out what other people think.

If we get this settled, it stands less chance of provoking a major incident during the season and we can all enjoy the year.

[Asher]

All I'm asking you to do is explain the hypocrisy. As far as I'm concerned, you can't defend (and even extensively use) one tactic and then shame the other.

Either the free agent pool is there, first-come-first-served and you can do what you want with it (use him for the remainder of the season, use him for only 1 game, use him for trade bait, etc), or we can regulate its use (eg, you have to use each free agent on your own team for at least a week before doing anything). It's the same concept, but depending if you're the one doing the action you change your mind on if its acceptable or not.