-
Two Girls, One Cub's trade block has been updated!
-
Dances With Wolves's trade block has been updated!
-
Hot Mess's trade block has been updated!
-
Two Girls, One Cub's trade block has been updated!
-
SIERA Mist's trade block has been updated!
-
It Hurts When I Peavy's trade block has been updated!
-
It Hurts When I Peavy's trade block has been updated!
-
It Hurts When I Peavy's trade block has been updated!
-
Two Girls, One Cub's trade block has been updated!
-
Two Girls, One Cub's trade block has been updated!
-
I'm offering Prince Fielder cheap, if anyone is interested in taking a flyer on him returning for the stretch run. I won't pay to be rid of him, however - if there are no takers I will either cut him or take that flyer myself.
-
{Poof}'s trade block has been updated!
-
{Poof}'s trade block has been updated!
-
Dances With Wolves's trade block has been updated!
-
Welcome to the league dances
-
Dances With Wolves's trade block has been updated!
-
HI All, I figured I'd take over your abandoned team, see what I can do with it. Open to offers if anyone is interested.
-
SIERA Mist's trade block has been updated!
-
Two Girls, One Cub's trade block has been updated!
-
Hot Mess's trade block has been updated!
-
Of course, this being an allowable trade in Ottoneu's eyes doesn't make this un-vetoable.
-
Interesting. That should be specified in the rules then. I probably would have done this in the past if I knew it was allowed.
-
Niv: I?ve seen it, and I?ve considered it. There are a lot of reasons that trade can make sense for both parties, so we have purposefully made that an allowable trade.
-
I don't really see how this is circumventing the cap. 2G1C wanted salary cap space. I was able to provide it. Would that be any different than 2G1C sending me a $5 player and me sending $14 in cap space the other way? I allowed him to get extra cap space.
-
I think we all understand how salary cap leagues work. The problem is that this trade allowed two owners to circumvent those rules.
-
In my opinion, Gordon should have gone to waivers to give everyone equal opportunity to claim him. And no one is outraged.
-
And it doesn't seem like a loophole to me. Sports leagues with salary caps typically count released players against the cap, but not players who were traded or claimed by another team on waivers.
-
Anything that isn't collusive shouldn't be vetoed. Gordon almost certainly could have brought back more than the roster spot and cap space (including probably from me), but that shouldn't matter.
-
I'm not outraged. It's just you offered him to me for one of the hottest prospects in baseball. Did not make a follow up offer for 0. But I guess you can do what you want.
-
Then if owners in this league think this trade is wrong because it's *weird*, then veto it. I'll let the process play out from here. Any more discussion about this is monotonous. That said, I'll ask Niv to see if he's seen this before.
-
There is no outrage. It's a legitimate discussion. It's not the transaction piece as much as it is the process. I would have the same concerns if you shipped off Freddy Galvis for nothing. I've never seen this happen in over ten years of fantasy sports.
-
"I most likely would take him outright if available"..."If I had been offered Gordon for nothing I might have accepted. But probably not" I guess I'm confused. Why is there outrage about this trade if this isn't a slam dunk?
-
I agree with Hot Mess. I didn't want Jensen and Gordon for Hamilton but I most likely would take him outright if available.
-
I was offered the trade for Mookie Betts. and I declined it. I agree with Crime Dogs that this is an exploitable loophole. If I had been offered Gordon for nothing I might have accepted. But probably not.
-
I think that's fair. Although I am receiving something tangible. Again, if one deems it unreasonable, veto it.
-
I could also argue that this is exploiting a loophole, where by giving up a player with no compensation, you are avoiding a cap hit while giving Dickey the advantage of not having to bid on him through the waiver process.
-
I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss a trade, especially one as unique at this, and it's perfectly reasonable to give an explanation. If enough owners feel it is fishy, they have the power to cast a veto.
-
As for compensation, I'm getting a roster spot and $19 to shuffle around for the rest of the year. This is the trade I offered and I'm standing behind it.
-
It's a little frustrating that I have to justify a trade I proposed, but if you truly think this is an unreasonable trade, veto it.
-
I realized that Gordon was seen as much of a negative light as I had seen him, so this was the only rational option. Could anyone have offered a better deal? Maybe.
-
Again I made the decision that I didn't want to drop him, saw someone with a solid opening in OF, with cap space, and offered it.
-
Maybe I didn't open him up to the league in its entirety, but I've offered Kenley Jensen and Gordon for Josh Hamilton, those two and $20 for Mookie Betts, those two and $29 for Giolito and Sano, same trade for polanco.
-
Having said that, I can see why Blue Jeans would have a gripe given that he has the cap space to do this too. It probably would have been better form to offer it more widely.
-
Even though I started this, I happen to agree with 2G1C that this doesn't rise to the level of obviously collusive (at the actual terms), and for me that is enough to let it stand.
-
I think posting "Gordon is free if you want him" and then picked someone randomly to give him to would have been a better course of action.
-
Yeah, I agree with Crime Dogs. Not that I want Gordon, but if I did, I just lost out on him for free. You said you "gave enough offers around the league" but did you tell everyone "he's free, take on his salary and I need nothing in return"?
-
It just feels weird to me, and I think that it could set a precedent that could make things very gray. What if next time it's Joey Bats, or HanRam? Does the quality of the player make it feel different? Just trying to wrap my head around it.
-
I don't know, something just bothers me about it. A trade should include compensation from both parties. Dickey is really not trading anything to you. I don't recall there being any open discussions on the possibility of shipping Gordon for nothing.
-
the trade. In my opinion, the only trade that warrants a veto are collusion trades and trades with experienced players taking advantage of younger players. Again this is my own opinion, but if I wanted to give gordon away for $38 I should be able to do it
-
I do not have the power to override the vote, but we can always redo the trade. On the subject of vetos, (my personal opinion, and that of 'professionals') if a trade is "lopsided" it doesn't warrant a veto. Two owners agreed in their own right mind to do
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages