-
Anyone else notice that Stanford Yankees twitter was hacked? Kept posting links to Bieber sex tapes.
Plakata on
December 18, 2012 5:16 PM
-
Stanford Yankees's trading block has been updated!
-
Yeah, unfortunately, because one or two trades were already made, it's probably too late to go back and change it. We would have to re-do the trades to return the players to their original owners. Then allocate. Then re-do the trades.
Poster Nutbag on
December 16, 2012 12:14 PM
-
I mean I guess you could exempt already-traded players from allocations, but that definitely won't work if your primary concern is enforcing the rules
-
I legitimately can't think of a good solution to allocating money after the trades. The trades were made on the pretense that the players involved would stay at that salary (mine was, at least). And yeah, good point about the rules.
-
So I'm not especially in favor of adding money now; but again, I can be convinced if we can get something of an agreement here. I will add, given the trades that have gone on, it will cause a few headaches.
Plakata on
December 15, 2012 5:43 PM
-
If you miss the deadline, you miss the deadline.
Plakata on
December 15, 2012 5:42 PM
-
That said, it's certainly not clear to me that the rules say we should have to manually adjust teams if the deadline was missed. In fact, the set up suggest the exact opposite:
Plakata on
December 15, 2012 5:41 PM
-
No doubt the timing of the arb allocations and the rush to get new owners didn't help us out. And I take responsibility for not being on that a littler earlier.
Plakata on
December 15, 2012 5:39 PM
-
...poorly from a logistical standpoint doesn't change the fact that the league's rules should be enforced. That's my two cents.
Poster Nutbag on
December 13, 2012 10:00 AM
-
...poorly from a logistical standpoint doesn't change the fact that the league's rules should be enforced. That's my two cents.
Poster Nutbag on
December 13, 2012 9:53 AM
-
Also, I'm not sure why we need to take a vote to enforce the league's existing rules. This is a flaw in ottoneu's design. The arb deadline should not be the same as the "claim a team" deadline. It sets up a clusterf*ck. The fact that the arb was handled
Poster Nutbag on
December 13, 2012 9:52 AM
-
The fact that we haven't heard from more owners on this issue is exactly how we got into this situation to begin with. Only a handful of us are dialed into the league right now. If you ask me the bigger question is whether we have the right managers.
Poster Nutbag on
December 13, 2012 9:49 AM
-
I favor moving on, but not strongly; but I should probably abstain, as the party to two trades involving guys whose salaries could get bumped.
Quasi Muto on
December 13, 2012 7:43 AM
-
Also, I'd like to hear a few more owners' input before we go through with this. For what it's worth, it will hurt the teams in better financial shape more
-
like I'm not sure how I feel about taking on additional money allocated to Machado if someone's already put $3 on my team
-
how are we going to handle the trades that have already happened?
-
Well, I won't be able to do it until next week, at the earliest. And one owner still hasn't sent me their list. Anyway, I'll make the adjustments next week, unless others are con.
Plakata on
December 12, 2012 3:07 PM
-
Wow, haha. My phone ate some words there! I feel strongly about arbitration, and the commissioner can manually handle arbitration increases by removing/adding players.
Chicago Socks on
December 12, 2012 12:47 PM
-
looks like my ate
Chicago Socks on
December 12, 2012 12:45 PM
-
iI had to manually drop players and re-add them at arbitration-adjusted salaries in a where I'm commissioner. I strongly that the $50 should be allocated.
Chicago Socks on
December 12, 2012 12:40 PM
-
Detroit Ligers's trading block has been updated!
-
I'm fine if we just move on. My only concern going forward is whether this signals we may have deadbeat/uninvolved managers in 2013. Arbitration is pretty important. If you're not going to be involved with it, what can we really expect out of you?
Poster Nutbag on
December 11, 2012 11:16 AM
-
It's fine
-
I thought about it a bit and it just doesn't seem worth the hassle to me, especially given that a trade has already been made. I guess if one of the teams that missed out really wants to allocate and has a good excuse for missing the original deadline....
-
Yeah, KC got butthoused. Re: allocations, I'd prefer to have the $50 allocated if that's possible. Even tho we have >1 month until the keeper deadline, we'd need the $50 allocated soon to enable informed trading.
Poster Nutbag on
December 10, 2012 12:22 PM
-
Also everyone agrees KC got annihilated in that deal right? I see people trying to be contrarians about it on Twitter and it's just like come on
-
I don't really care one way or the other. Re: Myers probably not but I dunno. Marginally worse home park but overall the AL East has good places to hit and he doesn't have to face the division's best rotation
-
Does playing in the AL east impact Myers' value?
Plakata on
December 10, 2012 12:14 AM
-
Niv is working to add the ability for commissioners to change salaries. But at this point, I'm wondering if the ship has sailed - what do others think? Should salaries still be adjusted or should we just make do with what we have?
Plakata on
December 10, 2012 12:13 AM
-
Oh, by the way, did we ever settle with the ottoneu overlords whether the two teams that did not allocate are able to do so after the initial deadline? Or is that book closed?
Poster Nutbag on
December 8, 2012 9:52 PM
-
Cool. Yeah, it's not something I plan to do anyway. But I thought it was a strange restriction.
Poster Nutbag on
December 5, 2012 8:48 PM
-
Not too much of an incentive to cut anyone too long before the deadline anyway
-
Never heard of anything like that. I think we had owners last offseason who had claimed teams and they didn't run into that issue. I'd doublecheck with help@ottoneu.com but I think your friend is likely to just be wrong
-
Another manager told me that if you claim an abandoned team, as I just did, you can only cut players once. You can't cut some players this week, some more players next week, etc. Do you know whether that's correct?
Poster Nutbag on
December 5, 2012 10:20 AM
-
click on your team, then cut players should be in the top left (just under league home)
-
yeah you should be able to cut anyone you want from now till jan 31
-
I'm not sure I follow. Is that a rule? You can't cut players now, for example?
Plakata on
December 4, 2012 10:28 PM
-
Why is it that managers who claim abandoned teams can only drop players once during the first offseason? Anyone understand the reasoning on that?
Poster Nutbag on
December 4, 2012 10:13 PM
-
be MLB contributors
-
The Red Sox are also way under budget, and these three year commitments will be expiring if/when their big-time prospects begin to
-
Wouldn't rule out the acquisition or signing of another SP by any means either
-
I don't see why the Red Sox shouldn't try to contend this year, or at least make these kinds of signings. The lineup already figures to be quite good, and while the pitching staff is a question mark, I'd imagine Lester will bounce back
-
Jackie Bradley isn't quite ready
-
Fine with the Victorino deal too--RF in Fenway is a hard place to play, and a corner OF with good defense is more of an asset there than in other places. Also obviously a good hedge in case they get a good deal for Ellsbury or he walks and they feel like
-
get a solid LHH 1B (Justin Morneau?) and use Napoli at C vs a lot of RHP
-
Career .371 wOBA for Napoli. Obviously he's not going to have another year like 2011 but 3 wins is worth about 12-13M. I also have a hunch they will trade Salty
-
I thought the Sox were rebuilding. Do these signing mean they're in it to win it this year?
Plakata on
December 4, 2012 5:51 PM
-
So Vic and Napoli got the same contract?
Plakata on
December 4, 2012 5:50 PM
-
I know, right?! I can't believe it. Well, actually, I can. It's the Red Sox. But WOW, right!?
Poster Nutbag on
December 4, 2012 5:26 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages