-
Let's roll.
-
Trouts salary is rolled back
-
Please take the survey monkey poll:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DWXHPFP
-
No polls. No nonsense. Just roll the salary back. Ottoneu is a ton of fun. I'll rebuild without the help. Let's get this started off the right way. Shouldn't be any asterisks when I finally pull the win.
-
It was offered by me as an incentive , I was not held hostage to have that done. I considered the team a significant investment in a rebuild. Working in setting up a poll.
Given that it was my offer, I don’t think we can change his salary, so the vote would have to be on some other recourse, for example , everyone can take 2-3$ off their most expensive player so it’s not as bad relatively.
-
TO BE CLEAR: I did not ask to have Trout's salary cut. And it certainly was not a condition of joining. It was offered to me in the initial contact Matt made. Change it back if people are going to be upset. I'll play either way.
Did I just join a league full of distrustful malcontents?
-
Whoa! Whoa! Cutting trouts salary to 55? I’m not on board with that at all! We have plenty of time to find a new owner! That was very hasty Matt.
Karn Kids on
January 1, 2019 6:43 PM
-
Cheese for your Kitchen's trade block has been updated!
-
Happy New Year, everyone. I'm also new to the league. Ready to jump in. I'm looking to make moves before the keeper deadline, so send them my way. I'll listen to anything, but mostly looking to get younger and cheaper.
-
Hey All! I'm excited to join the league, as this will be my first experience in ottoneu. It'll take a few days for me to get familiar with the league, strategies, values, etc, so trade offers will be evaluated and likely left alone during that time. I know how much an inactive owner or two can bring down a league, so even though I'm no expert, hopefully staying active helps bring enjoyment for all league members. Good Luck to all, and a Happy 2019!
-
Our league is full again - looking forward and good luck in 2019!
-
Found an ottoneu veteran who was willing to take 1776 today if we cut Trouts salary to 55. Given the state of that team specifically, the cut period ending soon, and getting an active veteran owner I think this makes sense for league
-
I’m also actively looking for an owner for 1776.
As is, we’d probably need to find an owner heavily interested in a rebuild opportunity.
If we don’t find anyone by Mid-January we might need to think of options to incentive someone to take the team. Cheaper Trout to build around for example.
Let me know your thoughts.
-
We have a new owner for Trouts team. He’s new to Ottoneu but not new to fantasy.
Welcome!
-
Catching up after a few days offline...did I miss anything? :). I would support the suggested rule requiring league-wide votes on trades at commissioner’s discretion, to avoid these situations in the future.
Also, Happy New Year to everyone here. I’ve been doing fantasy baseball for ~20 years but this is my first experience with Ottoneu (or any dynasty format, for that matter) and by far the most fun I’ve had. Thanks everyone for helping me sink further into the fake sports rabbithole!
-
I also almost traded for a couple of people involved in that trade so goes to show you how bad of a fantasy player I am :) No wonder I came in 8th! Really don't think this was that big of a deal and looking forward to moving past it and am 100% committed to 2019. Most fun Fantasy Baseball League I have ever been an and appreciate all the commitment and competitive nature of the league and hope it can continues.
Big Potato on
December 31, 2018 4:14 PM
-
Joe Buck is correct as Trout was definitely not fully invested into this league and I think wanted out regardless. Sad to see him go but probably for the better. I know I am not the most timely in responding and if we want to do some mandatory voting rule as Viva suggested I am okay with that but don't agree with any rule changes. I will also try to take the veto process more seriously in 2019.
Big Potato on
December 31, 2018 4:09 PM
-
I’ve added all of 1776 cut players back at the same price. Actively looking for owners to replace 1776/trout
-
1776 just wanted to be a dbag on his way out and cut the players he traded for. I agree to put them back on his team and move on. I don't think this was all that big of a deal.
Karn Kids on
December 31, 2018 12:33 PM
-
1776 and trout were never all that invested in the league to start with. 1776/hulk smash came into the draft late and then was in and out spending money recklessly. Pretty much how he ran his team all year. As for Trout he never wanted to be in the league to begin with. He didn't like the scoring system and said that this team was his lowest priority. I guess the point is here no need to over react and change things because of a couple owners that didn't want to be here in the first place.
Karn Kids on
December 31, 2018 12:31 PM
-
Hello all! And many thanks for the warm welcomes in my inbox very kind! Sorry I havent been active yet I had fantasy football playoffs then the holidays. I do see a ton of trades and will be reviewing those & my team tomorrow. In terms of going forward I would say add the dropped players back to 1776. I disagree with a mistake rule. From my understanding of events it was 1776 who proposed trade,ultimately the user hits the propose or accept button so its on them.
-
Issue with a particular transaction where it is indisputable that one of the teams trading did so without the goal of advancing their own team. My proposal is any owner can raise this issue directly to commish within 48 hours of trade settling. Commissioner them determines if league-wide vote is truly warranted. If yes, a mandatory league wide vote occurs whether to unwind the trade or not. Trade would be unwound with 3/4 or more of owners voting to unwind trade entirely
-
Adding the players back to the 1776 roster solves this particular issue for this particular trade forme. The trade may have been shit but there was no mechanism to deal with that other than veto which did not occur. I agree that, moving forward, we need a mechanism to deal with “outliers”. I support the 1 hour, 1x/year rule for owner involved in trade. That would prevent this scenario from unfolding again as this did. Additionally, I propose a mechanism by which any un-involved parties can r
-
I can’t lock teams - I expected a real mess to be made if I did nothing so 1776 and Trout were booted.
I’m proposing:
- players added back to 1776
- find 2 new owners
- the one mistake rule I mentioned going forward
I hope you all decide to stay post this event - probably should have set some framework to start. My fault on that one.
-
C) I have no qualms with trout but I think we want owners who want to be in the league so I think we need a new owner here as well.
In the meantime I’ve locked trout and 1776 so we can discuss
-
If anyone feels I’ve been not been objective that, other than the disgruntled owner, please feel free to discuss. For the 100$ buyin my goal has always been health of the league and fun.
The best way I see to resolve this going forward is the following measures:
A) Drop 1776 and add the players he dropped back to his team for a future owner to decide
B) Allow a 1 hour window from any trade accept for an owner to claim “mistake”. To avoid getting abused this can only be done once a year
-
Wow did not realize this escalated so much. To me it seems like a really bad precedent to undo a trade. I've made similar mistakes in Yahoo fantasy with no recourse, as rules are clearly defined. Unless there was a technical glitch I would vote to keep the rules in place as is. Its a fun league and I would hate to lose anyone either way.
Big Potato on
December 30, 2018 8:24 PM
-
The issues is the precedent that the trade sets (due to 1776 cutting his entire return..engaging in a trade that is inarguably a net negative for his team). This cannot be tolerated...The only thing worse than that would be failing to implementa procedure to handle an event like this in the future, perhaps a league-wide vote with mandatory participation of all team owners which would require, say, 3/4 of teams in league to sign off on the scenario at hand
-
Let's all just be honest here as well. Trout isn't quitting because an injustice was done, he's quitting because this is an easy way to way out from his trash squad.
Cosby Sweaters on
December 30, 2018 8:21 PM
-
Trout - that characterization is wildly unfair. I’m of the opinion that the only way we “lose” here is through in-action. The issue with the trade came AFTER the trade settled due to the fact that 1776 cut ALL of the players he received in return. Whether you/I/everyone else would’ve vetoed the trade before that is only partially relevant. To date, we haven’t had a single trade canceled due to veto and I didn’t expect this trade to be the first (shitty as it may be).
-
Just so all the anons are aware commish and Pratt are buddies IRL, might be affecting commish’s ability to make the objectively correct decision.
-
Interesting conundrum. Either we “change history” or set the worst fucking precedent of all time. Seems like a lose-lose to me. I vote we just bite the bullet and pick one.
-
I expect we will be losing one owner either way.
We also have no precedent for “revotes” so that would also be a novel one off.
We can vote on a grace period going forward for “mistake” trades within reason and limited.
My opinion is it is hard to change history on this specific trade given no specific rules were in place.
-
So the facts:
- it’s confirmed by ottoneu founder it’s not just two clicks, counter (players are still checked) , review players and then submit the trade (there’s multiple steps to get an accidental offer sent)
- I asked for a screenshot that a similar trade was recently rejected as proof of an error and not buyers remorse (none was provided)
- the league was given 2 days to veto
- we have no league rule regarding this type of user error and it’s not in ottoneu guidelines
-
Lol, Pure Class Pratt. (new team name?)
-
Lol trout is such a pussy
Cosby Sweaters on
December 30, 2018 7:42 PM
-
I don’t see abandoning my team/this league over this matter as a viable option. In life, no matter what realm you’re “playing” in, there will always be conflict and problems. Confronting and handling them is the only path forward. Running away solves nothing. I’m 100% on board for 2019. As a league, let’s address this and move forward. We will all forget about it in 6 weeks anyway
-
Clearly with Rose and Viva, there were 6 vetoes of the trade. Commish clearly the league thought it an error, you should probably undo. That said, that it’s come to this, I’ve decided not to continue with this league... please find another owner for my team.
-
Also, a trade should never be vetoed unless there is evidence of collusion. No matter what you think of the players involved
Cosby Sweaters on
December 30, 2018 7:34 PM
-
Agreed Viva. Tough spot. Can honestly see both sides to the argument. Would have vetoed, but forgot, so that's on me as well. Not like that one vote would have made a difference though.
-
And I should say, your veto didn't work ☺️
Cosby Sweaters on
December 30, 2018 7:32 PM
-
Or I should say, what makes you think I didn’t veto? 🙂
-
I think going forward, requiring 7 approval votes should be enough to capture most mistakes. It doesn’t sit well with me the commish didn’t intervene. I think we need honest commitment going forward. If we lose 1776 because of this, that’s bad enough. To pretend this didn’t happen might lose more teams as well.
-
How do you know I didn’t veto?
-
A trade was offered to me and I accepted it. You had ample time to veto. You didn't. Maybe in the future instead of bitching you should do better
Cosby Sweaters on
December 30, 2018 7:29 PM
-
IMHO, no “rule change” is going to solve this or a similar situation in the future. What IS in order is an honest dialogue about the precedent this trade sets, for better or for worse, for the long term viability of the league. To fail to recognize that this is not a black and white topic is highly problematic; it is very much shades of gray.
-
I for one would not be vetoing due to the lopsidedness of the trade. Although it's clearly the worst that's gone through on here and there have been some doozies. I generally don't care how other teams want to run their rosters and won't veto unless you could somehow prove two teams were colluding. I'd veto due to the clear fact that 1776 never meant to offer the trade in the first place and did so due to clicking on the wrong button.
-
Great you guys can all have a vote for a rule change now. Retroactively just doesn't cut it.
Cosby Sweaters on
December 30, 2018 7:17 PM
-
It is tough to stomach a transaction where 1 of the 2 parties involved literally gets nothing out of the deal while the other team benefits immensely. To be beyond fair, the “nothing” in this instance is not subjective in any way. Quite literally, 1776 sent 2 valuable players to Team Pratt while Pratt cleared $87 in payroll for ZERO return. I struggle to see the logic and don’t expect any form of “explanation” could change that
-
I was one of the owners who forgot to veto who would have vetoed. I guess I kinda assumed the commish would veto the trade manually as it was pretty obvious to me that it was user error with the interface by 1776. It's not like 1776 offered the trade, thought about it for a day and then decided he didn't want to do it. Pretty sure he responded within 10 minutes of the trade going through.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages