-
Tough week for team names.
-
i'm a seller, guys... jay bruce at 5 bucks is a steal and a half and he can be yours... as well as beltre, verlander, corbin, abreu, bradley... come at me guys... looking for youth and prospects. win now at my expense!
-
RIP Gsellman.
-
Yeah, I didn't get 2 of my players out of the lineup. They of course both pinch hitted yielding me a grand total of 3 pts.
-
P.S. Thursday day games are the bane of my existence
-
Yeah, most of his advantage on me was in this P/G before, now his P/IP is way up too.
-
P&E's starters have been brutally effective in the month of July. I think they've scored something like 740 points in 105 innings with only 4 HR's. That HR figure is 25% of what the MLB league average is. It makes total sense to run ahead of pace on IP's when you get this production up and down your staff.
-
Anyone interested in Schimpf? He's carving up AAA pitching since being demoted. Looking for a good OF, an excellent RP, or some other interesting piece.
-
Dichromatic Eyes's trade block has been updated!
-
Sugary Drinks's trade block has been updated!
-
Harmon's Killer Brew's trade block has been updated!
-
So it's crunch time for your Minnesota Twins! Get through the next two weeks and it's time to get a better pitching upgrade than the Fat Man. Anyway, second half starts off against Houston. Go get 'em, Jose! This is almost as exciting as the race to lose 100 games last year. Tad more positive, for sure.
-
Harmon's Killer Brew's trade block has been updated!
-
Panik! at the Sisco's trade block has been updated!
-
4 Baggers's trade block has been updated!
4 Baggers on
July 11, 2017 8:33 PM
-
Yeah, I agree with muskies. This league is no fun anymore. I don't think I'll be back, either.
-
Not sure why my last post cut off, but the end was obviously "the dead horse."
-
I wasn't in the leagur last year but P&E had over $150 in loans when he won the league. Which means he saved assets. Even now he has value contracts to move if he wants. It's completely petty to shit on Muskies for trying to accumulate assets as well.
-
Update #2 on the Trout offer: P&E had assets to trade. No one else presented a better deal. So it doesn't matter what BA or BP says. The rational move was to trade Trout. I wanted Trout as much as anyone and didn't have the assets he wanted. Did I complain?
-
Di-Eyes pretty plainly saying both trades had valuable returns, and then you announcing that according to a different list, I needed you all to protect me from big bad P&E. No point in announcing the BP non-inclusion of Weaver/Robert except to continue to shit on the Trout trade, which, again, since this seems to be confusing, P&E and I withdrew, despite both wanting to make it. Enough. Y'all left me with Trout on a losing team. It's boring and not pleasant to listen to you beat
-
Uhhh, there were two midseason lists just mentioned. I mentioned a third. Feel free to bring up any other lists that haven't been brought up yet.
The Lōgunate on
July 10, 2017 11:18 PM
-
Boy, you know what's fun, Wildman? Continuing to shit on a trade that people withdrew to get people to stop complaining about it, and making the participants in that trade (who each liked the value they were getting) continue to read your complaints about the trade that they got browbeaten into cancelling. Because I'm not 5 years old, I'm not going to threaten to quit the league mid season, but I've already told P&E privately to feel free to find a replacement for me this offseason.
-
Another update: neither made BP's updated top 50 list.
The Lōgunate on
July 10, 2017 11:11 PM
-
Meanwhile, Aaron Nola made a list, too, at #49. That's the Fangraphs top 50 in trade value. This doesn't make him the 49th best MLB player as there are contract considerations built into the list. But still, based on Fangraphs analysis done for this list, Nola is rated pretty high. His WAR projection for the next 3 years is pretty good at 9.4.
-
Update on the Trout and Kershaw offers. Baseball America did a mid-season update of their top 100 prospects list. Robert, prev unranked, at #45. Weaver, prev #46, at #65.
-
Yep, and I hope that my defense of my trade did not make anyone forget that I agree with you.
-
anyway, at the end of the day this league is just for fun. i'm done ranting. good luck to everyone over the rest of the season, including wildman and di-eyes. :)
-
I know, I just think it's helpful to frame the conversation for what it is. The problem is not the quality of the deal, it's the inconsistency of how we handle salary dumps. We should discuss at length how to them in the offseason.
-
i only raised that to deflate wildman's lone remaining attempt to distinguish this from the trout deal. i don't blame you at all. and, as commissioner, am letting the deal go thru. but as an owner trying to win, i just think it sucks that someone would pile on to block my deals while making similar ones later. that's poor sportsmanship.
-
I just want to point out that my options were: 1) take a shitty deal 2) let Kershaw go for nothing. If this deal is "shitty" in that context then we need to change the rules. I agree that if consistency is the goal the trade should be vetoed. I will be trading or cutting Kershaw at the end of the year if so.
-
I can't blame you, Peel.
-
i'm not inclined to reverse this trade, or any others going forward. but the rank hypocrisy bothers me.
-
I don't see what conceivable difference that makes to a team that's not contending anyway. Besides, Luke weaver is up now. Just admit it--the real reason you didn't like it was that it made my team better.
-
This bears repeating, Wildman had to subtract an active and productive piece from his roster to do this deal. P&E didn't. That alone makes this a more fair deal. No veto on this deal, nor should the other deal have been withdrawn.
-
I was one of the loudest to argue against the Trout trade, and I'm afraid that I've contributed to creating a slippery slope now on future deals (this one included) where now we are weighing value on returns rather than letting owners be adults and make whatever trades they want - something I still believe in. That said, I do think both owners are selling far too low for these deals to be considered balanced in any way, but again, I'm afraid we're entering slippery slope territory now...
-
Looks like I missed a doozy being off-line for a few days. For what it's worth, while I do think this deal provides a bit more value than the Trout trade, at the same time I don't believe it's much. If I were trading Kershaw away and paying for his salary, you can bet that I'd be asking for 3 prospects back that all fell into the top 25 in MLB rankings. I don't see much difference here between the Trout and Kershaw deals.
-
So let's go with the commisioner's veto in order to be consistent...
-
Wildman, the trade received 7 💩's on slack and near universal scorn. Your attempts to distinguish it from the trout deal fall flat.
-
I won't complain if my deal is vetoed as well, but I have to make decisions in my own interest and let the league sort out the rest. We could discuss cap relief rules in the offseason, but it doesn't make much sense to do it now.
-
Actually, third thing: i received zero unsolicited offers for Kershaw from anyone complaining that I did not get enough value.
-
I also note that Muskies & P&E cannot "redo" their deal because weaver has been traded.
-
Second: I want to repeat that vetoing the trout trade was garbage. There are not buyers in this market. Value is determined by demand. Any pie-in-the-sky valuations of players are only good if *someone will pay that much*.
-
But frankly: of course this was (roughly) the best available deal. I don't care what slack says. This is a buyer's market. I was turned down on deals only marginally better by every available buyer.
-
So, I only have two things to say. 1) there are three teams in contention in this league, four at most if you include me. I was in contact with all three. This was more or less comparable to P&E's best offer, and I chose this route for various reasons which I am happy to discuss privately with anyone interested.
-
It seems to me that the Trout owner and buyer still believe in their deal. I suspect this Kershaw deal will go through and if it does I suggest that the parties of the Trout deal go back abd make the same deal again and we also let it go through without threats of quitting, etc. They quite equal and there is not argument letting one pass and not the other.
-
I am using my own valuations and Kershaw at this price point seems good value. So in my opinion this is not really a salary dump. Besides, the seller doesnt gain financial flexibility until the offseason, when you cannot use ir for auctions. Meanwhile the other side really just circumvents the salary cap. My 400 cap now has to compete with another team that has a 450 cap. This is an aspect that I have some trouble wrapping my head around. But such are the rules and that's the game.
-
There is no difference in this trade and the Trout trade that was vetoed trading the best Hitter in baseball for two prospects and trading Kershaw the best Starter Pitcher in the game for Nola come on how is that even in the same ballpark not going to veto but not sure why the Trout trade did not go through if this one does not sure that seems to fair think all trades should be approved because ever owner views players differently my only objection is the other trade did not go through. Chuck
4 Baggers on
July 6, 2017 9:26 PM
-
Also the loans drop off at the end of the year. If wildman cuts kershaw in the offseason, no penalty.
-
Harmon--everyone gets penalty free cuts during the offseason up to the keeper deadline.
-
Wow! I am offline for half a day at a conference and I seem to have missed a huge bar brawl! About 50 messages or so.
Still believe that everything depends on the valuation of each asset.
In this case I also have a hard time believing that this is the best available deal. I reckon that cutting loose Kershaw and using the full budget that frees up to bid for prospects probably yields a better haul than Nola, but that is a matter of strategy.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages