-
Watch out Lincecum, you may have Chris Sale, but I've got Jerry Blevins now!
-
I'm dumb. I just noticed my message wasn't complete. I'm in favor of a rules exploratory committee. The end.
-
I'm fine either way. These kinds of trades don't take any of the fun out of it for me but I also have no objection to added complexity if other people think that would be an improvement.
Brass NHPs on
June 21, 2017 2:33 PM
-
Thanks for your thoughts, Dave (& Pedro). I was in sell mode earlier this year, but couldn't bring myself to do a complete purge. Besides, I HATE being in 10th place, even if I think my trades will make me better in 1-2 years.
My abstention was intentional. I didn't & don't like this trade. But without regulations in place, I simply could not decide how to vote.
No matter that it's a free league, I like structures in place to keep it interesting & competitive. I vote for
-
So I'd like to hear from you guys about whether you'd be interested in exploring a set of "house rules" that made trades like this less common, or if you all prefer to just leave it as is, and not complicate a for-fun league with additional complexities.
-
So, to try and keep everyone interested in this league as much as can be, I'd like to gauge interest on changing the rules of our specific league to incentivize teams to climb the standings even if they don't end up winning. There are various ways to do this (giving future cap-room credit for higher finishes, for instance), and I think trades like this could be avoided in the future if we set up a different structure for the league standings. But I don't want to make those changes unilaterally.
-
I totally agree with Dave's kingmaker comment. I've built a team for 6 years and gone from last to contending to see it completely undermined by Gedman's valuation (or lack there of) players. You will never convince me that this was a deal about him getting better. A trade like this can absolutely crush a league. Why build anything if it can be torn down by a crazy lopsided trade? I am extremely disappointed.
-
Having one trade effectively dictate the outcome of the race reduces the enjoyment of for everyone. And while I think leagues like this are most fun when everyone is competitive and trying their best, the reality is there's nothing really at stake here, and we're all just trying to enjoy the challenge of building the best teams we can while raising money for cancer research. From my perspective, trades like this one simply make the league less fun.
-
I don't think it's reasonable to expect individuals to always account for this external negative cost to the league, and Lincecum was obviously just doing what he can to help his team win. He's within his rights to do so. But I don't think we should ignore the negative impact that deals like this have on interest in the league as a whole. If this was a prize league, I'd be more inclined to take the "everyman for himself" approach. But this league is for charity. For fun, basically.
-
Gedman Thumbs's trade block has been updated!
GP3 on
June 21, 2017 2:12 PM
-
That said, I do think this deal highlights the primary structural problem with Ottoneu; the way this format is setup, there is no real incentive for teams to continue to try and contend past the first few months of the season, so we end up in a situation with many sellers and few buyers. And that creates an unhealthy situation where one seller can effectively dictate the outcome of the league with a "kingmaker" trade like this one. And trades like this are simply bad for the league as
-
Okay, so, the league has spoken, and the Gedman/Lincecum trade was approved 6-4, with two abstaining. While I personally voted to veto the deal, believing it is not in the best interests of the league as a whole, I don't believe it is good for the league for the commissioner to override the veto votes of the owners when there is no evidence of collusion, so I will not unilaterally cancel the deal. The trade will stand.
-
Friedman, my first comment was in response to Pedro's initial posting. I'm fine with your stance. I was simply acknowledging that there is value here for Gedman, so the debate comes down to whether he gets enough. I agree with Dyersville - that gets into uncomfortable territory.
-
Ralph; I broached the idea of a one week re-opening of negotiations so that everyone felt that the deal reflected the best offers Gedman could receive, but neither party was particularly interested in that outcome. Gedman is correct in stating that most of these players have been on his trade block for weeks, and so others in the league have had time to make other offers. But if, as a league, we want more negotiations to occur, the veto is the method to make that happen.
-
Unless someone alleges some sort of off book deal for future compensation or "I'm quitting the league so I don't care" motivation I will not veto. I don't think the league should block bad decisions made in good faith. But that is my personal veto threshold, as others have said, we haven't established any rules about veto usage so everyone should feel free to exercise it however they choose.
Brass NHPs on
June 20, 2017 10:05 AM
-
I mean, I think you can give opinions now...
-
All I am asking for is that people look at the trade objectively and decide for themselves. I've made my opinion abundantly clear. I too will add more once the trade either goes through or is vetoed.
-
I'm really torn here. I know what abstaining from voting ultimately means, and I don't want that to send the wrong message. I suppose I'm just publicly acknowledging that this isn't an easy decision.
-
That being said. Trades that I think are bad happen all the time.
-
As far as the trade itself goes. I like Tucker and Ozuna. Severino is fine, but overrated at the moment in my opinion. There are better FA prospects than Barreto.
-
My stance was not that there is no benefit to Gedman's side. I was simply saying that we don't need the whole "YOU CAN ONLY VETO IF YOU THINK COLLUSION OCCURRED" debate. You can veto for any reason you like. You can not veto for any reason you like. That's up to you.
-
I don't mean to over-complicate things, but want to throw out an "in-between" suggestion. Could we give a window of a week to open back up negotiations, and if Gedman doesn't find anything better, we let it go through?
-
The most unfortunate thing about this format is there is no incentive to move up a place or two in the bottom half of standings. Which means non-superstars who cost $20+ have virtually no trade value past May 1, unless thrown in to a deal like this.
-
I have to admit that, selfishly, I was pretty disappointed when I saw the trade notice. On the other hand, it strikes me as odd that this trade is the first one to really get picked on. Severino and Ozuna have considerable short term and long term value, so the idea that one of the teams does not benefit at all here seems flat wrong to me.
-
A couple thoughts. I would echo Dave's point. You don't need set rules for a veto. Just like you don't need set rules to allow a trade to go through. If you feel that a trade is unbalanced enough (every trade will seem slightly unbalanced) then say something/vote accordingly. There's nothing wrong with that. In the same way that I don't think there was collusion in the deal, I don't believe collusion is the only reason you can veto.
-
Those are my statements as the commissioner of the league. I don't think it would be appropriate to comment further until after the 48 hour trade window has passed and the league as a whole decides whether this trade should be completed. After we see how everyone votes, I'll weigh in with some additional commentary.
-
Here's what I'll say about the trade.
1. I am confident that no collusion took place. Gedman and Lincecum made a trade based on their own evaluations of their options, and there is no unreported compensation here.
2. There are no official rules, either in Ottoneu generally or Screw Cancer specifically, that were violated by this trade.
3. Likewise, there are no official rules governing the use of the trade veto. Owners can vote to veto for any reason they choose, or no reason whatsoever.
-
If we consensed as a league, in advance, that we had guidelines around trades (and this violated them) I'd certainly agree. One option would be a maximum loan value of $25 per trade and $100 accrued over a season. But we don't have that and this is pretty clearly a deal for the future.
-
So I've voiced my concern to both Dave and Ben about the horribly lopsided trade btw Gedman and Tim's. I don't think a trade this one sided should be allowed as it completely changes the trajectory of one competing team and does not help the other team short or long term. I am used to one sided ottoneu trades but this one is so egregious I had to speak up. I would encourage everyone to review the trade and if they feel the same to please veto it.
-
Gedman Thumbs's trade block has been updated!
GP3 on
June 19, 2017 1:41 PM
-
Bad day yet you are only 300 ish points behind and have at least 100 innings to make up. I have you projected to win it all by 200 points. That is some voodoo ninja crap going on with your team.
-
So far today in the Piedmont: Julio Urias to the doctor to have his shoulder examined, Kyle Hendricks getting an MRI, and Matt Kemp pulled his hamstring. Also Johnny Cueto gave up 3 HRs to the Royals somehow. Things are going well here.
-
Piedmont Boll Weevils's trade block has been updated!
-
Gedman Thumbs's trade block has been updated!
GP3 on
June 12, 2017 10:27 AM
-
Tim Lincecum's Mustache's trade block has been updated!
-
Turner and/or Ozuna are available for a big upgrade at OF/MI and/or SP. Message me or send offers if interested.
-
My SP, outside Stras, make me physically ill. Just. Terrible.
-
Lots of luck involved but I'll take it.
-
Wow, Pedro, have a day. 217 points!
-
You know your season is going well when you're rostering Danielson Lamet, Brad Peacock, and Luis Perdomo...
-
Open for business. Not trading Freeman, and will only part with one of Goldy/Bryant, but otherwise go nuts. Send messages and offers (probably won't get back with everyone until tomorrow night or Saturday).
Brass NHPs on
June 1, 2017 1:42 PM
-
Third Degree Raburns's trade block has been updated!
Brass NHPs on
June 1, 2017 1:41 PM
-
Prob when he pitched in tee-ball 😁
-
So, -27 points for Kershaw today. When's the last time that happened?
-
11th place! Once Yoenis, Beltre, Tulo, Chapman, and Taijuan get healthy, I'll set my sights on tenth.
-
Tim Lincecum's Mustache's trade block has been updated!
-
You've Been Friedman'd's trade block has been updated!
-
Tim Lincecum's Mustache's trade block has been updated!
-
I've enjoyed two dreams about Daniel Altavilla in the past week!
-
Dyersville Redbirds's trade block has been updated!
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages