Fantasy hockey pet peeve

[horrorfan]

I feel like having a little rant.

One big pet peeve of mine is when someone sends you a trade offer that provides a detailed explanation why I should accept the offer, which includes detail on the perceived positive impact on the standings for me should I accept the offer, but also how my team could be better constructed than it is now. Of course, part of the offer is to give one of my best players this season for depth, and also includes parts where any basic review of my squad would show that it makes no sense to me to accept it.

It's a predictable tactic that never works on me. Send me an offer and that's it. If you want, feel free to say 'What do you think?', 'Maybe this is a good fit' or something similar, but leave the management of my team to myself.

/rant.

[senryu]

But this approach is the best approach when the other owner is not as well-versed in the details. The approach isn't necessarily wrong, just that it is not tailored to someone with experience and acumen in fantasy sports. Ultimately it is a complaint against the other owner not recognizing your ability and being insulted by that lack of recognition.

[2014olympicgold]

I rather someone take time to think through a trade than send an offer and go "counter with what you want".

I used to get offers like His Connor Brown for my Mitch Marner and him going "I want Marner, send an offer" without me saying Marner is on the block.

Buddy, you want Marner, you send me a legit offer, don't ask me to create a trade for you.

[Eskimo Brother]

As someone with a lot of experience creating trade offers, it's definitely an art, and it has to be tailored to the recipient. I have sent offers with those explanations before, and will do it again, but I agree with the above, it's more so for the GMs that aren't as on top of things. However, sometimes it's also in the sense of "here's what I see, and I'm trying to work with that to make a deal". Usually though, that also includes a detailed bit on my side too, showing what I gain from it and explaining what I'm interested in doing.

Other times with different GMs you just say "hey I'm interested in X, would Y or Z be a conversation starter"? And other times you know with certain GMs you just need to send your best and final offer first, and it's going to either be taken or not.

[skinnypete88]

As someone with a lot of experience creating trade offers, it's definitely an art, and it has to be tailored to the recipient. I have sent offers with those explanations before, and will do it again, but I agree with the above, it's more so for the GMs that aren't as on top of things. However, sometimes it's also in the sense of "here's what I see, and I'm trying to work with that to make a deal". Usually though, that also includes a detailed bit on my side too, showing what I gain from it and explaining what I'm interested in doing.

Other times with different GMs you just say "hey I'm interested in X, would Y or Z be a conversation starter"? And other times you know with certain GMs you just need to send your best and final offer first, and it's going to either be taken or not.

Ya this one for me. If I know the person I'm trading with I will approach the trade differently depending on who I'm dealing with. Some people I'll badger like a used car salesman and some I'll my best and final first like Eskimo says.

If I don't know the person and I'm interested in a player, I will have say two players in mind that I think would be acceptable offers and start by offering the player I consider the lesser of the two.

[Bag Skate]

I don’t even consider offer unless they come with an explanation. If an offer comes without a word of explanation, I almost always just decline without even thinking of a counter. So I disagree with your pet peeve and mine would be the opposite of yours.

[2014olympicgold]

I don’t even consider offer unless they come with an explanation. If an offer comes without a word of explanation, I almost always just decline without even thinking of a counter. So I disagree with your pet peeve and mine would be the opposite of yours.

Really? You're telling me if the trade offer was legit even and made sense you wouldn't even accept it because someone didn't type in "I think this is fair for both of us?"

I would honestly just stop even wasting time trying to get a deal done with you if I knew that was the reason lol.

[pmorrow]

I get/give lots of trade offers that dont have notes and they turn into deals...as long as both sides have looked at what the other team needs it should be pretty self explanatory shouldnt it?

[RizzeeDizzee]

The next time someone does this Horrorfan (or anyone else), use it as an opportunity to reply with one of my favorite adages - "Those who justify don't convince"

[Invictus]

Other times with different GMs you just say "hey I'm interested in X, would Y or Z be a conversation starter"? And other times you know with certain GMs you just need to send your best and final offer first, and it's going to either be taken or not.

This is kind of how I begin... Usually it's specific stats I'm looking for. I try to see what stats they need and go I'm looking for X,Y player and these players could be available to trade to you, but I also want to see what they are wanting.
The offer will come with an explanation on how I see it forming/benefitting us.
Usually the players involved in the trade request sent will overly favour me as really it's just to get talks going.
If I get a decline with no explanation I just assume they either haven't read the explanation or just aren't open for trading.

If I personally know the person I will just talk to them. Yahoo chat is better now then what it use to be, so I will usually try and talk to them to see if they are open to trading first then my sent trade offer will be a little more serious instead of a feeler.

[stevegamer]

I get that rant. I will often say I'm looking for a position/stat and see you might want this other position/stat, but that's about the extent of it. Unless I'm countering a ridiculously bad offer with too much detail, then I will counter with appropriate level of a counter, yet make the explanation work very well. I've even had one or two of those counters accepted.

My pet peeve is leagues with team naming rules that aren't rules but are subject to commissioner whims.

Examples:

Rule: "Team must have a real current or historical team name." (That's an actual quote)
Allowed and existing when I joined: teams that changed city or nickname, and kept one or the other; also a defunct team with a city in common with a current team.
Disallowed: defunct team with a city and nickname not currently in use.
Rule was not changed to reflect the new decision, so I went with a violent nickname that fit the criteria. They weren't happy.

A league a friend got me in with other friends of his, and 'you can name your team what you want'.
I noticed a few religious names in there, but didn't think much of it. Somebody decided that it would be good if we all had biblical reference names.
I'm not religious and my buddy knows that, he's very religious, but I'm one of his most reliable friends.
I tried Goliaths, nope. Lions, nope. They wanted things glorifying their god, so I got out of there. It would've been an issue when they found out I didn't attend church. Ironically, I ended up drafting for my buddy a year or two later in that league.

[Invictus]

I usually have at least 4 minimum team names throughout the year lol.
Team is slacking? Name change to wake them up! Coaches decision.
Riding a hot streak? Can't change it then...

For awhile my team name in the Dobber league was, Snitch Yarner & Snake Morachek (that someone, I forget who, had used these two names in a forum post so I ran with it). I had them both on my team, but traded away Snake Morachek so had to change my team name to just Snitch Yarner.

EDIT: I looked it up. It was fantasyhockeygeek that used those names

[hockeyrobot]

Definitely agree with you HF.

But this approach is the best approach when the other owner is not as well-versed in the details. The approach isn't necessarily wrong, just that it is not tailored to someone with experience and acumen in fantasy sports. Ultimately it is a complaint against the other owner not recognizing your ability and being insulted by that lack of recognition.

However I will say I've used this approach when dealing with less experienced managers. And it's worked.

But it all comes down to knowing your league.

[horrorfan]

Thanks for all the comments so far. Good discussion following from my mini-rant.

Obviously there are different approaches and perspectives, and it also shows that there are a variety of reasons and contexts for when comparable approaches can be used. Specifically, I understand using a similar approach to my example on a less experienced manager can work, though I wouldn't choose to use it. I would rather them try to figure out what suits them rather than me suggesting that I know better. However, I also understand that there can be subtle differences between such an example and trying to find a fit by explaining benefits to both sides, without being a know-it-all.

That said, for me, my example is specifically relating to a manager trying to tell me how to manage my team, by suggesting in detail that their offer would achieve that, but they want to give me this unbalanced, not-so-well-thought out offer to achieve it. I know it's not easy to formulate offers, but don't claim to know better than me when sending it. If you just send me the offer and I reply with feedback that can lead to a good follow up discussion/negotiation, that's great. But don't try that tactic on me from the start.

[hockeyrobot]

I'll remember this in MLB ^^^

I used this in NFL this year. A newer team was decimated at RB. Like just starting backups. He had Amon Ra and this was before his big 2nd half. I had David Montgomery and Herbert had just went on IR. So I sent Montgomery and DJ Moore for Amon Ra. With a tiny explanation.