-
New Year, Nunez's trade block has been updated!
-
Canseco Juice's trade block has been updated!
Law Dog on
January 4, 2018 12:32 PM
-
Think I'm Just Too Round and Curvy's trade block has been updated!
-
Think I'm Just Too Round and Curvy's trade block has been updated!
-
Think I'm Just Too Round and Curvy's trade block has been updated!
-
Canseco Juice's trade block has been updated!
Law Dog on
January 2, 2018 6:15 AM
-
Think I'm Just Too Round and Curvy's trade block has been updated!
-
Think I'm Just Too Round and Curvy's trade block has been updated!
-
Mithril Hall's trade block has been updated!
Obi Juan Solos on
December 30, 2017 10:26 AM
-
Cup's trade block has been updated!
The Kernel on
December 30, 2017 3:17 AM
-
Balls To The Walls 's trade block has been updated!
-
Winter Hibernation's trade block has been updated!
-
Balls To The Walls 's trade block has been updated!
-
Merry Christmas!
-
Well said. Merry Christmas to all.
-
Merry Christmas!
-
A story about hindsight... I was working on my custom projections last week and I started to get really excited. In testing them against actual 2017 results, they were incredibly accurate. Bragged to my wife and everything (she feigned interest). After a few minutes of thinking I was pretty smart, I noticed an error in the spreadsheet... I was essentially using 2017 results to "predict" 2017 performance. Now my wife's interest - and laughter - were genuine. Merry Christmas, everyone!
Twisted Joints on
December 25, 2017 12:04 AM
-
I think some of this analysis is made with the benefit of hindsight. I was the sole bidder on Miggy. I claimed Beltre and nobody else put a claim in. Almost everyone else I rostered was $1 or $2. At the end of the day, I am fine either way regarding penalty-free cuts. Whatever the league decides. Keep in mind we may need them if a team is incredibly bad and we want to find a new owner willing to shell out $50 annually.
Obi Juan Solos on
December 24, 2017 2:14 PM
-
It's important to keep in mind that you get 50% cap space when making a cut. When someone else rosters that player, you get all of that cap space back. I would have made all the cuts I did without the penalty-free cuts. Furthermore, I wouldn't have had Cueto on my roster. Thus, I'd only have cap hits from the 11 $1 guys., which would have left me with the same amount of cap space. Long story, short. I'd have made substantially similar cuts with a substantially similar budget.
Obi Juan Solos on
December 24, 2017 2:10 PM
-
The goal is to have a competitive, fun, and active league and I believe with the current owners we have that. Hopefully, all this is a moot point and we don’t have any inactive owners during the season like we did last year.
-
The replacement owner wasn’t able to bid on breakout players throughout the year like Smoak, whereas every other owner in the league was capable of bidding on them. I understand the frustration with what happened, however everyone was able to shed cap space by cutting overpriced players and the blind auctions act as a check and balance system. Even if a team doesn’t have the cap space they can bid whatever they want and force teams to pay the appropriate value for the players.
-
The issue is cap penalty free cuts for replacement owners. We can disallow those in the future, however that is something that we should decide as a league as a whole. The reason replacement owners receive penalty free cuts is because they come into a league with disadvantages, mainly that they’re replacing owners who are inactive or have a weak team.
-
Thanks Mithril. Impressive reclamation! There's one nuance in the rules that I didn't understand at the time, that I want to point out, in case others are unaware: It is 100% possible and acceptable to bid in in-season auctions with dollars you don't currently have available. If you win the player(s) and go over the cap, you then have to make cuts to get under the cap. I erroneously thought the cuts had to precede the bids (see my 8/28 Miggy drop). This isn't a sketchy bug, it's a feature.
Twisted Joints on
December 24, 2017 11:43 AM
-
Exactly. You cut 21 players and got a 100% refund which gave you an advantage over other teams in bidding down the stretch. You were playing by a different set of rules. No other bottom tier team cut 21 players. 9 of which were considered good because guys bid on them. I'm not fully convinced you would have cut those 9 in hopes someone cut a player you liked if you didn't get a 100% refund. And I feel like those 9 were unconventionally thrown into our game due to the 100% refund rule.
The Kernel on
December 24, 2017 11:38 AM
-
For the record, I cut Hamilton, Espinoza, Barnes, Martin, Strop, Dyson, Duffy, Musgrove, Alvarez, Soler, Velasquez, Gurriel, Hellickson, Castro, Perdomo, Quintana, Seager, Polanco, Capps, Healy, and Cueto on 8/27. Only Velasquez (subsequently cut), Gurriel, Castro, Perdomo (subsequently cut), Quintana, Seager, Polanco (subesquently cut), Cueto, and Healy were reauctioned.
Obi Juan Solos on
December 24, 2017 10:29 AM
-
For the owners with cap space, I moved my guys for that cap space. Hope that helps clarify things.
Obi Juan Solos on
December 24, 2017 10:24 AM
-
I understand the idea of getting rid of penalty-free cuts; however enforcing a "no cuts of good players" policy would be a nightmare for the commissioner(s). I largely cut crap players and some decent, overpriced players who I did not view as keepers. Anyone could have obtained those players when they were reauctioned. If they didn't have the budget, they would have needed to cut someone to clear cap space. Again, a trade without any loans.
Obi Juan Solos on
December 24, 2017 10:23 AM
-
The trade deadline was 8/31. I had players I did not plan to keep for 2018 and the offers I received were suboptimal at that point. Based on the finances of other owners, I knew many of the players would be reauctioned and would force cuts. I was more interested in picking up those players to be cut than keeping the guys I cut. This allowed me to obtain keepers for 2018 that I otherwise would not have had. It was trading in another form, almost like a PTBNL situation with no loans.
Obi Juan Solos on
December 24, 2017 10:21 AM
-
This is nothing personal against Mithril hall, I may have done the same because it is allowed but I think we should change that.
The Kernel on
December 23, 2017 11:26 PM
-
Let me clarify my argument. Inactive owners should be replaced ASAP. What I don't think is proper is for a new owner to cut a bunch of good players on Aug 27th as our season is nearing the finale. Normally to acquire a player like Cueto, Quintana or Castro in season you would have to give something up. Even during the off season we all have the opportunity to create cap and plan for such FAs. This mass cutting of good players in late Aug is unconventional to our overall process.
The Kernel on
December 23, 2017 11:18 PM
-
Other than that, it is just a common courtesy thing to respond to other owners although not required. That again is a more personal choice, but like with anything in life, communication helps with things.
-
If it hurt me, then it hurt me but it is for the betterment of the league to have members that at least will login. Again, I asked some active owners and commissioners. As far as how each runs the team, I think the beauty of fantasy baseball is that everyone has different evaluations or uses different rankings or projections, ask others thoughts on players that you like their evaluations, etc.
-
I think there’s a difference between an inactive owner and a bad owner. The projections from Baseball HQ just came out. Some owners like their teams. Some are waiting for the latest projections. And some practice excruciating patience.
-
Who is John Galt?
-
Thanks Winter. I agree that an MIA owner is impossible to trade with, but I don't understand how having one less owner bidding on free agents would make it harder to catch the team at the top of the standings. If anything, it seems the opposite is true. This isn't just theory; it happened. Once Mithril Hall went from an absentee to an active owner, it outbid your in-the-hunt team for a bunch of free agents. In other words, more competition made it harder to for you (and others) to gain ground.
Twisted Joints on
December 23, 2017 6:53 PM
-
Furthermore, it is a detriment to a league long term if it is content with MIA owners because it will get the most active owners to leave the league. When Hall took over, he made the league more active and thus a better league. Every team had the right to cut players to sign any FAs that they wanted.
-
First, there is a difference between inactive (not signing FAs, not trading or responding to trades, etc.) than being MIA. If you don't login at all, the owner needs to be replaced and a month seems like a good amount of time. I polled those that are commissioners and active owners in the slack community that agreed. Additionally, a MIA owner benefits the top teams at that time since it removes a team from competition as well as another potential trade option.
-
With that said, we would love to hear from more owners about whether you think inactive owners should be replaced during the season or not until the offseason. Feel free to post here or DM Jacob or me if you prefer.
Twisted Joints on
December 23, 2017 5:08 PM
-
Just so there's no misunderstanding, no part of the debate about replacing owners in season should be interpreted as being critical of the current owner of Mithril Hall, "John Galt." He's a great, active owner, and a stand-up guy. We are lucky to have him. I look forward to having my ass kicked by him for years to come.
Twisted Joints on
December 23, 2017 5:06 PM
-
i'd rather keep current format as well, but could be interested to join a h2h league here as well!
Genitals on
December 23, 2017 12:42 PM
-
I agree an inactive owner should be replaced but does it really matter if a last place team is inactive for a month? The players dropped added a lot of good players to the FA pool. Players that normally a team would have to give up good players in order to get but instead teams just needed cap room. I think the sudden influx of FAs is worse than an inactive last place team for a month or so. I think its better to replace them during the offseason. Just my 2 cents.
The Kernel on
December 23, 2017 8:51 AM
-
The Dirty O's trade block has been updated!
-
Cornucopia Grainbelters 3's trade block has been updated!
-
I hate having the second best week and losing. I’ve heard of combined h2h and Roto leagues. That might be fun.
-
If an owner doesn't login for a month without notice to the commish or league, he should be replaced. It seems the owner group we have now has been more active. I also view responding as a common courtesy thing and thus usually give feedback in communications with other owners.
-
Also, I think I'm going to set up a H2H league so if anyone wants in let me know.
The Kernel on
December 22, 2017 4:59 AM
-
I like H2H but I understand its shortcomings. I'm with the commish and co-commish about keeping this league in original format. However, I vote for any new owners to be found during the offseason. I wasn't a big fan of Mithral Hall dropping all those players midseason and adding a bunch of players to the free agent pool.
The Kernel on
December 22, 2017 4:59 AM
-
I for one am a H2H fan. If anyone wants to set up one, I will likely be in!
King MeKong 🦍 on
December 22, 2017 4:19 AM
-
Thanks for raising the issue, Dwight. It's a big change that seems to be generating a lot of interest over in the Community. Personally, I'm not a big fan of H2H scoring either. Jacob and I have discussed it and we both think it is best to keep this league's format the way it is -- no H2H, no playoffs.
Twisted Joints on
December 21, 2017 12:21 PM
-
I agree with The Dirty O, not of a fan of H2H play especially in Ottoneu.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages