Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Of course, I was just making sure I was remembering correctly :)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of any reason a team would make a trade that wasn't advantageous for them in someway, barring any "fishy activity".

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

No that's correct. Technically my opinion that trade makes no difference in the result.

The primary reason to approve trades is to make sure nothing fishy is going on, correct. However, there has to be some understanding that certain trades unbalance the league to a more significant extent than others, something that has been a great topic of discussion. Do I think that one trade is going to make that difference? No, I don't. But what I don't want is similar trades occurring again, and again and again to the point that the league is unbalanced. I feel that, in a vacuum, this trade is unbalanced enough to warrant a veto, something that Eric clearly agrees with. I want to quote Brennan on a relevant opinion:

As Eric said, this trade is really close. Really close. So returning with a slightly closer to the center offer will probably get the result you're looking for.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I can.
And it's related to the way some teams approach alliance selection: Accept any offer (even if you could do better by picking your own alliance). Granted, I don't expect FF players to play that way--but it's possible.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I guess I misunderstood what we were making the system for. To me, I don't really see the logic behind policing every single trade to the utmost scrutiny, I thought it was going to be a more "Well make sure teams aren't just pooling teams into a single team, or trying to rig stuff".

I don't get why trades like the TBC/UT trade are being declined, because at the end of the day, theres absolutely nothing stopping us from just picking for each other and trading after the draft(We wouldn't do this, just an example). It's not like this is like 6th trade we've done where TBC is gaining first round priority and UT is only gaining 2nd, its just 1 trade, both teams are happy with it, and its not a huge amount of pick priority for either team that screws over other teams.

Edit - We approved the Falcon/QD Ventura trade, which is far more imbalanced than this one, but we can't get this one approved?

How is moving from #9 to #1 for a 1 spot 1st round trade and a 9 spot 2nd round trade more balanced than this?

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

The one other possible motive would be to try to help make sure that people who are being very accommodating aren't getting stiffed. That is a possibility.

I haven't declined the trade YET (or rather, I pulled back the decline). It did raise an eyebrow or two.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

We've never made sure people make good picks, or make sure they make good team trades, why make sure they're making good spot trades?

I guess I can kinda compared it to FRC. Imagine the committee as FIRST, and the traders as teams. FIRST gives you all the tools you need to get started, runs the events, tries to help you at events, etc. They also make sure you follow the rules. What they don't do is come into your shop and make sure you're building a good design. They don't come up to you at the event and make sure your picklist is good.

The committee, IMO anyways, should be there to make sure rules are being followed, as the main 4 draft runners(excluding Brennan), we "run the events" by running the drafts. What we don't need to do is make sure teams dont mess up or make bad picks/trades. If they do, thats on them. Maybe if they're consistently making bad trades, the commish could say something to them, and if they're consistently making bad trades to the same team, commish should step in. But just because someone makes a bad trade that some people might think doesn't benefit them, doesn't mean they have a safety net of the committee grabbing em and saying, hey this trade is bad we won;t let it go through.

That'd be like picking at a FRC event, and the head referee declining your pick because they're a bad team, and telling you to try again with a better pick.


Edit - @Eric, I'm not arguing for the sake of the TBC/UT trade, you're the commish, you decide the trades, I have no issues with that. I'm more arguing for the entire system as a whole, and the way its being used. The reason I supported the system in the first place was to make sure trades weren't overly unfair for the teams NOT involved in the trade. If you accept a trade, thats on you. But if trades are constantly overly favoring one team over other, and certain teams are consistently gaining advantage over the non-involved teams by a large margin(trading 1st round picks with no other accompanying trades for example, the entire reason the system was brought into place) thats when the committee should be vetoing, not when one trade is slightly tilted in the favor of one team.

tl;dr I don't agree with the committee being used as a safety net for teams involved in trades, and feel it should more focus on making sure nothing fishy is going on, and that the teams not involved in the trades aren't continuously getting cucked by extremely(emphasis on the extremely) unfair trades.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I'll jump in here since my opinion is being quoted :yikes:

This right here is exactly why I wasn't a fan of the trading at all to begin with. ::rtm::

Then I proposed the tiered system to prevent as much abuse as possible without being too restrictive (which wasn't put into place) largely because QD thought it restricted the trades too much. (that's fine) but then we use that argument when it applies to us. Seems semi-hypocritical to dislike the idea presented, but then use it against us to prove a point. :O

Obviously TBC thinks that this trade is in the favor of us, otherwise we wouldn't be trading.

I don't think it's that much different from the trades that have gone through.

"Shenzen #1, #19; Dallas #9, #27, Southern Cross #23, Central Illinois #16 Shenzhen #6, #13; Dallas #5, #23; Southern Cross #18; Central Illinois #11"

Shenzen #1 is miles above better than any other team at the event.

Falcon QD Ventura #9, #10; CVR #3 Ventura #1, #18; CVR #4

This one benifits QD pretty significantly IMHO. #1 pick is OP, especially at ventura where the pool is much weaker.

"TRF F3 Tech Valley #1 and #18, Central Illinois #2, Sacremento #5 Tech Valley #7 and #12, Central Illinois #1, Sacremento #2"

#5 pick probably better than #7 and #12 in my books. TVR #1 is more valuable than CI #1.

As I said I think the draft spot trading system just promotes sweet talking weaker teams and being best buds with other teams. If we see teams doing slightly skewed trades, we are obviously going to attempt to do the same.

Do I think the trade is "fair"? Well I think we are getting a better deal. Is it more unfair than other trades that have gone through? nah.

We can't judge based on subjective opinions, and the fact that it could be even argued that this trade is possibly fair means that it should go through. If the league were to put in non-subjective methods to resolve blatantly unfair trades that would make sense to me. The delta is good for UT, but the FP is good for TBC.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

You saw Falcon's Ventura picklist, and the note with it. Not as unbalanced as you might think, particularly from Falcon's point of view.


On to the rest of the post, which will be a little more on topic:

Trade approved.

I plan to contact Untitled via PM.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I've been looking at it from the view point of how heavily it is affecting the non-involved teams, As I thought that's what the system was for(My apologies in advance if I was mistaken, in which case I would of vetoed that as I did not have access to the note and picklist before the trade was approved.)

In this case, because Falcon benefits a little bit, and QD benefits greatly, even with the extra reason, Falcon only gains 1 spot extra, so it's just a little. Using the logic thats been shown above, QD benefits massively and Falcon only slightly benefits, so even though Falcon doesn't lose anything, the trade HEAVILY favors QD, much more than any other trade that has been done thus far. So by using the safety net logic, that trade should have been declined, however I don't see any reason we should make sure trades are super balanced for the involved teams, and as it was the first trade between the two teams, didn't smell anything fishy, I accepted it. (I was certain Eric had a good reason, but either way, its not my job to make sure all his trades are Grade A for him).

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I was using it not to talk about the tiered system, but the idea of abusing teams. That point is valid outside of that argument, and if you want to look at each of the trades we've made involving "tiers" that were proposed at the time, we have always been on the fair or "losing" side of the trade.

That single statement ignores the fact that we gave up a significant of other picks in the trade, including one first rounder, and trading down from the second to third round twice.
I would have understood if this trade was vetoed. We thought it certainly might be. But both James and Joseph approved it. In addition, we did trade down in the first round. The distance from the average #3 to the average #4 pick is by no means a small jump.
TVR #1 could be more valuable than CI #1, but TRF traded down in two other high first round spots to complete this trade, as well as trading down in the second round. This is a fair trade, and it was approved by every single reviewer.

That last argument is very very valid, and that combined with a couple other fair points have been made to convince me that my (mostly irrelevant) opinion on the trade should be switched. However, I've started to notice a trend[1] regarding certain players, which should be monitored going forward.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

On another note entirely:

I will be running a final beta test of an updated draft runner during GKC draft tomorrow. The main update is to allow automatic random picks if someone's list calls for randoms.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Just to address your points of every reviewer accepting all the trades thus far until today, I was not reviewing on a "fairness" standard, if I had been, I would of veto'd at least 2 drafts thus far.

However I don't think that's what the systems for, to me its just a way to make a convenient place to pool all the recorded trades, and make sure there isn't anything suspicious going on, but I've said enough on the topic already, just wanted to address that those trades would have been veto'd if I was using fairness logic.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Fair enough. I liked what Brennan said on the matter, and I've said enough already as well.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

FYI: I've come across a slight hitch in schedule that makes me questionable to run Colorado on time (12/11). I don't anticipate starting > 1 hour late, though.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Man I have one early night and the world explodes. Since this has been resolved this is more so that my feelings on the matter are available for all to see and not to cause another argument.

Are all trades just a matter of +/- being equal?

In my opinion, no. If you look at the sheet you can see my comments on the TRF-F3 that I would not have approved it without the Sacramento exchange being a part of it that is because

Does it matter who is at the event?
The way that I have been looking at it, yes. It is more about known quantities then unknown. If you agree or not I do look at who is attending the events to see if these were teams being potentially traded would it be equal.

To use the above TRF-F3 trade the reason I approved it was looking at the teams at the events historically speaking :

At Tech Valley there are 4 teams that I see as major point earners. So TRF entered into a pick position to get those teams and F3 left it.

At Central Illinois there were 5 teams I see as major point earners. The trade of 1 to 2 was a wash

At Sacramento there are 2 teams that I see as major point earners. So F3 enters the position to get one of those teams and TRF left it

So with the overall trade I considered it even.

Now we look at the TBC-Untitled Trade. In my opinion this trade was pointless because there are 4 teams at GKC that can gain points TBC just feels more confident that there is only 2 so this trade is a wash.


Feel free to disagree with me looking at who is attending the event but the only reason you all want to make trades is because you looked at the event and determined based on the teams that you wanted to make the trade, so I did the same.