-
Funny...
And actually not far from the truth. Haha
-
Besides, Altuve was mostly a throw in to go with that 19 year old high-a pitcher I wanted
-
The heart wants what it wants, P&E.
-
so then you immediately trade for a MI?!? :)
-
I have way too many middle infielders, let me know if you have interest in Panik/Kipnis. Will move them for any decent asset.
-
I think three way deals are great/important and would vote for a mechanism to make them binding in the offseason.
-
Now would be a good time for Scooter Gennett to go on a career best hot streak.
-
i guess what we don't want are trades for future considerations. so this is a little bit of a grey area. but i think as long as the moves are roughly contemporaneous, it's not a big deal.
-
i think you can negotiate however you want, but there's no enforcement mechanism if someone backs out.
-
Are 3 way deals ok in this league? I recognize that what it really involves is 2 separate 2 way deals but I don't want to do a 1st deal unless I get commitment on a 2nd deal. I don't see arranging 2 deals on contingency as collusion but others may see it differently.
-
I'm sure there's some other 19 yo high a pitcher you can bid on. ;-)
-
Oh WTF Ottoneu. I bid $3 on McKenzie
-
I'm not trying to slag your offer for kicks, I'm trying to suggest that P&E was my best source of value for Trout. You and I viewed Thames *very* differently. I could have seen him as one of two comparable pieces in a deal for Trout. You saw him as worth (by himself) Trout plus another piece I value. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say I'd rather have Robert and Weaver than the Eric Thames experience (however it works out) while also being down another player.
-
That's twice you've slagged my offer, this time calling it silly. So for full disclosure, my offer involved Thames who is going to have huge surplus value in the off season, is eligible in the OF (same as Trout) and at 30 yrs old has several good yrs in front of him. We all realize now that what you value are young guys with no MLB track record.
-
*seems to come down to
-
More to the point, the trade is vetoed, meaning that I didn't get two guys I wanted for my rebuild, and the discussion might as well be over, so I'd love not to have to continue reading about it.
-
What people seem to be missing is that I wanted Robert and Weaver, and that I had a player I was happy to cut to make room for them. I don't have another player I'm willing to cut for anyone else that P&E would trade as future value, so that was the best deal I could get there. Dichromatic's offer was silly, and Panik and I were far apart. So it seems come down to "you should have checked with Wildman, too." Which, sure, maybe I should have, but that's a rough basis for this
-
This really is the last I want to post about this, because I'm trying to enjoy a day at the beach. I don't plan to keep Trout at this price plus $2, so if people want to talk in the offseason, I'll be all ears. As far as getting a better deal, P&E has no cap room to make the loan smaller, and there's only value in getting guys I'd prefer to guys I have. I get that it's better for other competitors if I take players from the leader, but if I'm not using them, it doesn't help me.
-
Mount Rose Muskies's trade block has been updated!
-
Danger: Wildman's trade block has been updated!
The Lōgunate on
June 25, 2017 3:21 PM
-
... to see if they like to outbid P&E might get you a better haul.
-
Muskies, I sympathize with your idea about your top players being wasted on a losing season. Then again, I can imagine driving a harder bargain, for example for more players in return or for less salary subsidy (which allows you to outbid the rest of us on auctions). At least some viewed the deal as too generous, but that doesn't mean that they would view every deal as too generous. So there is defintely room for negotiation, if you ask me. I guess hitting up nrs 2, 3 and 4 in the standings...
-
Anyways, I just worry if we start evaluating trades based on personal opinions on who "won" or "lost" when we know it wasnt collusionary. Just my opinion.
-
Then set a deadline and chose amongst the best. But clearly thats not required. If no one steps up then he gets what he can then P&E can really claim a defensive move to keep hom from others. Honestly I find the roster cutting manipulation far more troubling than this. Its a free league except bragging rights. Maybe Muskie is Cuban and he wants a country hero and is willing to do whatever to get him. I know I paid a huge price to get Benintendi. Just wanted him on my team.
-
But with Trout the calculation changes, because even at his price he gives fair and a lot of value. Not how, because of injury, but definitely in the future. So he is not necessarily a rental. That would make me as an owner search for a higher value in return. Then again, as I said: someone might value Weaver and Luis Robert as very good value. So that is up to them.
-
I too find it difficult to veto a clearly non-collusion deal. I hit veto because the narrative sounded like thats what needed to happen to not have people quit and ehat Muskie wanted in hindsight. Otherwise I would have been silent. I get that many of us would think that a small haul for the best player, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I hate arbitrating opinion especially with prospects. I think this would have been more inarguable if Muskies announced he was taking all offers
-
P&E bid $11 on robert as I recall
-
From my perspective there is a difference between a high price Trout, who is still good value at $65 and an overpriced veteran (think McCutchen for $50). The overpriced veteran is anyway not worth keeping beyond season end for the price. So selling them with a loan to make up their salary is probably just fine. The buyer gives up future value for an overpriced rental, which they will cut at year-end anyway.
-
Highest priced prospect that P&E kept in the off season was $4. Luis Robert would cost him $6 to retain. Doubtful that he is kept in the off season.
-
g season.
-
To be clear, Dichromatic, unless we're talking about different offers, I'm not sure I'd call your offer for Trout "solid." It was significantly worse than the trade I accepted from P&E. (Full disclosure, I may be forgetting about an offer, in which case, I apologize.)
As far as a loose offer for Stanton, I think this experience has made clear that if I sell any of my high-priced guys for future value, people are going to freak out, so I'm just going to waste them on a losin
-
Panik, I wouldn't sympathize too much with Muskies. He turned down a solid offer from me for Trout and hasn't replied to a loose offer for Stanton. It's true I haven't made an offer for Kershaw but I have made a private inquiry. There might not be a lot of buyers in this market esp. since you (4th place) are now selling.
-
And considering I'm struggling to get offers for Kershaw, I sympathize wth Muskies completely.
-
I agree that that was a lousy haul for Trout but there was no justification for that veto. None.
-
No firesale. Don't get at me.
-
I want this to be a fun, fair league with active owners, and one trade wasn't worth jeopardizing that.
-
I solicited feedback on slack and the consensus seemed to be with the nay votes.
-
Ok, I canceled the deal.
-
This was Trout, his entire salary paid for, and even a dollar of salary relief for two prospects not sniffing any of the Top Prospect lists.
-
Dichromatic - I agree completely. No trades should ever be vetoed unless there's suspicion of collusion, which there clearly isn't here. That said, I still vetoed it. When the first place team gets the best hitter in baseball and the entire salary relieved (plus a dollar even) for two players who would just as likely be found on the waiver wire as they would be in a trade for Martin Perez (but never in a trade for Trout), I can't sit here and be cool with that.
-
I approved the trade. My position hasn't changed. All trades should be approved absent evidence of collusion. But also all trades should be subject to public scrutiny and ridicule, if necessary.
-
P&E, please, your rationalizations are weak. Trout is already hitting off a tee and is on target for returning 7/14. And a defensive trade is one where you only get Trout in return for one of your studs who is tearing it up this year. You're getting the #1 offensive player in return for 2 players who contribute nothing for 2017. This is a 100% offensive trade. It's made to smash the competition. Not to mention that if you have 1 very minor weakness, it's in the OF.
-
Keep in mind that he's hurt and Muskies is completely out of it. But I agree, hate to lose owners and will follow the vote on this.
-
I considered the move more defensive than anything--wanted to scoop up trout before someone else did.
-
Also, if you've sent me a trade offer, I'm not going to respond to any until this is resolved one way or the other, so that I know what my team's situation is before I make more deals.
-
I mean, I obviously disagree, and am happy with the return I got, but if people feel that strongly, I'll even join the veto vote, as I would hate to see us lose owners behind a single trade.
-
Seriously. That's inexcusable. You guys can consider my team inactive for the rest of the season if that goes through. Feel free to remove me as an owner to find someone else if you need to.
-
This is in the running for the worst deal I've ever seen in fantasy baseball. Blue, I agree- if this return isn't "free", I don't know what is.
The Lōgunate on
June 24, 2017 11:45 PM
-
Wow. Mike Trout for two throwaway players AND he paid the entire salary difference? I typically never, ever veto trades but the first place team just got the best hitter in baseball for free. I had to veto this one.
-
Well if that Trout return bothers you, don't let Kershaw go so cheaply. Best pitcher in baseball for the low low price of "someone young and good"
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages