FFL - 2012-13 - Voting on Rule Change - draft order posted

[bww78]

how many do we need to veto 10?

8

[sabonis]

20-2 traders=18 divide by 2, you get 9, add 1 to get the majority vote 10

why do we do it on 8? no underlying reason to ask this, just curious. hell I like it being 8 since most of us don't veto trades anyway. it would have been impossible to reach 10 on any deal

[writersblock]

how many do we need to veto 10?

It's actually 8, and I think we're at 3 right now, so I highly doubt we get to veto.

To be honest, again, I have to say, I hate the deal. I hated it when I offered it (and then I completely forgot I offered it). But my team has been hamstrung nearly every day because I dont' have any SFs that can play, so every game I've had to sit a PF and have lost out on numbers.

Obviously, Millsap is better than Matthews, but the bottom line is: the market sets the value of the player, especially in this league. Like I said, I went down the list and offered millsap to just about every team in this league for a guy ranked in the 20s and 30s (which by all accounts should have been a favorable deal for the receiving party). However, not one person even offered a counter offer, and most were either rejected or rejected with a blurb about how bad Millsap is. So, I went and offered him to guys in the 40-50 range (for the record Wes Matthews is a 50ish type player, says I). Again, the deals should have been a no brainer. I would've taken them if I were them. But nearly every deal was summarily rejected...until now.

Now, I'll be honest, I don't think this deal is as bad as Gokce does. Sure, I'd like to have it vetoed, only because it's a lame deal, but I can live with it if doesn't get vetoed. Frankly, here's how I saw it. Comparing the 2 players and taking out points, FT%, assists and TOs (in which they aren't statistically different), Millsap has advantages in boards, blocks, and FG%, Matthews in 3s and steals, so it's a 3-2 advantage for Millsap. BAsically I'm trading FG%, boards (something I'm usually strong in) and blocks (a cat I'm punting) for 3s and steals. And considering that getting Matthews means I can now play an extra guy 3-4 times a week (as well as said market value slant), I figured it's a downgrade I could absorb.

[tkunit]

I vote no veto.

Now I wish I would have gotten an offer but that is how it works out sometimes.

[fraanciiscoo]

I can vote but will explain why I almost turn down this deal.

I look and thought
what most thought say and i agree is PM is top 20 vs top 60 of WM, but If you look to my G spots WM would be more important to me than PM.
I only accept after i came up with the miller trade.

[bww78]

20-2 traders=18 divide by 2, you get 9, add 1 to get the majority vote 10

why do we do it on 8? no underlying reason to ask this, just curious. hell I like it being 8 since most of us don't veto trades anyway. it would have been impossible to reach 10 on any deal

Read the whole thread:

Obviously people are going to want to vote on this one.

24 hour period is now open for a vote. WB, Fran and myself are not eligible to vote. Assuming at least 2 other managers won't even see this post over the next 24 hours, that leaves 15 managers. 8 or more veto votes are needed.

[bww78]

how many do we need to veto 10?

It's actually 8, and I think we're at 3 right now, so I highly doubt we get to veto.

To be honest, again, I have to say, I hate the deal. I hated it when I offered it (and then I completely forgot I offered it). But my team has been hamstrung nearly every day because I dont' have any SFs that can play, so every game I've had to sit a PF and have lost out on numbers.

Obviously, Millsap is better than Matthews, but the bottom line is: the market sets the value of the player, especially in this league. Like I said, I went down the list and offered millsap to just about every team in this league for a guy ranked in the 20s and 30s (which by all accounts should have been a favorable deal for the receiving party). However, not one person even offered a counter offer, and most were either rejected or rejected with a blurb about how bad Millsap is. So, I went and offered him to guys in the 40-50 range (for the record Wes Matthews is a 50ish type player, says I). Again, the deals should have been a no brainer. I would've taken them if I were them. But nearly every deal was summarily rejected...until now.

Now, I'll be honest, I don't think this deal is as bad as Gokce does. Sure, I'd like to have it vetoed, only because it's a lame deal, but I can live with it if doesn't get vetoed. Frankly, here's how I saw it. Comparing the 2 players and taking out points, FT%, assists and TOs (in which they aren't statistically different), Millsap has advantages in boards, blocks, and FG%, Matthews in 3s and steals, so it's a 3-2 advantage for Millsap. BAsically I'm trading FG%, boards (something I'm usually strong in) and blocks (a cat I'm punting) for 3s and steals. And considering that getting Matthews means I can now play an extra guy 3-4 times a week (as well as said market value slant), I figured it's a downgrade I could absorb.

If I had a nickel...

[Breakdown777]

I vote no veto...

I may have forgotten, but I'm not vetoing because I don't believe I was offered a deal when I have Joe Johnson and Manu Ginobli. You might've asked for Rudy Gay, but I'm fuzzy on that one (with so many leagues and spotty internet it's easy to lose track).

Anyway...my no veto vote can be taken as a sign of defiance against WB. Then again, I'm probably just a Wolves homer who isn't crazy about Portland and thinks that JJ and Manu are better options than Matthews.

[stick]

no veto

though methinks brian is secretly rooting for the veto

Well, Brian, you'd better put up some good numbers for me tonight in New Orleans. Another 16 point 8 assist game would be nice.

Its hard being a 2 sport stud

[hamncheese]

No veto.

[bww78]

Ok, 6-2 vote in favor of the trade. The trade was not vetoed.

[theman]

To be honest, again, I have to say, I hate the deal. I hated it when I offered it (and then I completely forgot I offered it). But my team has been hamstrung nearly every day because I dont' have any SFs that can play, so every game I've had to sit a PF and have lost out on numbers.

Obviously, Millsap is better than Matthews, but the bottom line is: the market sets the value of the player, especially in this league. Like I said, I went down the list and offered millsap to just about every team in this league for a guy ranked in the 20s and 30s (which by all accounts should have been a favorable deal for the receiving party). However, not one person even offered a counter offer, and most were either rejected or rejected with a blurb about how bad Millsap is. So, I went and offered him to guys in the 40-50 range (for the record Wes Matthews is a 50ish type player, says I). Again, the deals should have been a no brainer. I would've taken them if I were them. But nearly every deal was summarily rejected...until now.

Now, I'll be honest, I don't think this deal is as bad as Gokce does. Sure, I'd like to have it vetoed, only because it's a lame deal, but I can live with it if doesn't get vetoed. Frankly, here's how I saw it. Comparing the 2 players and taking out points, FT%, assists and TOs (in which they aren't statistically different), Millsap has advantages in boards, blocks, and FG%, Matthews in 3s and steals, so it's a 3-2 advantage for Millsap. BAsically I'm trading FG%, boards (something I'm usually strong in) and blocks (a cat I'm punting) for 3s and steals. And considering that getting Matthews means I can now play an extra guy 3-4 times a week (as well as said market value slant), I figured it's a downgrade I could absorb.

Are we still voting? If so, I will vote veto only because I think WM messed up. That's and I see Portuagese Bastard as a bigger threat.

If voting is over I am good with that too. To tell you the truth WB I was willing to deal (not the one you offered) but not during the week we were facing each other. Personally I think you should have gone for a smaller deal like what I offered. I think your impatience cost you.

[Woody Allen]

Veto.

[theman]

Great timing on my part.

[sabonis]

I didn't vote but I think 24 hours for the veto period is too short.

[3Si]

If you have time, please cast a vote in this unique situation: (Is THIS trade veto worthy?)

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=1214110

[fraanciiscoo]

That's and I see Portuagese Bastard as a bigger threat.

true but experts writers said i even would go to consolation LOL

I agaisnt sk1p this week and something strange happend ( I forgot to set my team on wed ) so i had on the bench

20/35 FG%
5/10 FT%
1 3pts
46 pts
17 rebs
16 ast
1 stl
2 blk
6 to

if you add that to my stats I should be winning vs sk1p
from
.050 %FG
.010% FT
132 pts
6 rebs
18 ast
26 blk
6 3pts
7-2

but i not there yet only 6-3
I think it´s me trying to equal things up

[fraanciiscoo]

btw with this 2 trades
I think FG% STL AST REBS BLK moved up
FT% to 3pts moved down
PTS who cares i have LBJ

[Curtis Lemansky]

Sly's first 3 picks: Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger and Eric Gordon

[bww78]

Sly's first 3 picks: Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger and Eric Gordon

Bynum and Gordon were huge injury risks to begin with...