-
Water Champs's trade block has been updated!
-
Milk Hotel Marauders's trade block has been updated!
-
All of my SP are available for trade
-
Who needs a 3B? Looking to move Justin Turner for SP, OF, RP, 2B
-
Thunder Road's trade block has been updated!
-
Water Champs's trade block has been updated!
-
Milk Hotel Marauders's trade block has been updated!
-
last call before i cut him!
-
with severino out till june and me starved for cap space, willing to sell him pretty low to anyone wanting to stash him/flip when healthy.
-
Water Champs's trade block has been updated!
-
Thunder Road's trade block has been updated!
-
Juan Pierre's Croissant Tienda's trade block has been updated!
-
Water Champs's trade block has been updated!
-
Thunder Road's trade block has been updated!
-
Pumpkin Escobar's trade block has been updated!
-
Water Champs's trade block has been updated!
-
Georgia Gyroballers's trade block has been updated!
Jobu’s Rum on
April 1, 2019 9:52 PM
-
Pumpkin Escobar's trade block has been updated!
-
Thunder Road's trade block has been updated!
-
Dingoes's trade block has been updated!
Dingoes on
March 31, 2019 9:33 PM
-
Anyways, I think you'll end up satisfied no matter what happens. Either it goes through and at that point we shut up or it doesn't and you stand a pretty good chance at getting several superior offers. But I get your gripe with arguing that others do something when your mind is already made up on principle.
-
...is what got the conversation going.
-
Pumpkin I will concede your point about not arguing in favour of a veto when you yourself have already made your decision is valid. I hadn't thought about it, but you're right that it makes sense to allow others the opportunity to change your mind, and in the future I won't talk if I've cast my vote already. That being said, I think several of us immediately came to the conclusion (independently, before this thread got going) that this was a trade for which casting a veto was legitimate,which...
-
It’s your opinion that Moncada is overpaid. Apparently, no other prospect (or top prospect in his case) has ever taken time to develop. It’s also irrevelant as plenty of guys are overpaid or can be debated as overpaid. Luzardo had an outside shot at the roster prior to injury & still may come up early this season. And Kopech is no different than any prospect being dealt. It’s why the league allows for prospects. They have value.
-
Again...that’s part of the league which allows for long-term strategies. And I’ll maintain, that if you were in the heat of contention & you couldn’t facilitate a deal like that, or didn’t find it necessary, then have it come in for another in the 11th hour - that is far more difficult to counter than a move that happens this early. Everything else you laid out can happen w/any deal. Come 6/4, both your 2 and 3 points can still happen. Point 1...is founded primarily on opinion...
-
He (1) trades unproven, injured and overpaid players for potentially the single best value in the league ($12 Stanton), (2) still has time to flip out of big contracts should the season not go as planned and (3) doesn't have to worry about cutting guys he likes until an entire season from now.
Jobu’s Rum on
March 27, 2019 6:18 PM
-
The time value is much different at the deadline. The buyer in that case only gets a bargain for a month or two, and very shortly after has to cut players he would otherwise keep. The idea is that the risk of having to cut those players is worth the short-term boost in productivity. In this case, there's almost no risk involved for Big Papi...
Jobu’s Rum on
March 27, 2019 6:18 PM
-
I think handing over guys at the deadline w/money is far worse. You all at least have an opportunity to better yourselves SHOULD it have such a major impact. At the deadline, you're stuck w/little to no ability to counter. And most people 'buying" then would certainly be in contention, giving them the advantage. I understand the belief that a cheap Stanton for a whole season has value, but it's actually 2 months we're talking about. The first trade w/money involved was 6/4.
-
Thunder Road's trade block has been updated!
-
Though for what it's worth Juan, there is definitely a significant difference between a $50 loan when there's only two weeks left of the season (and thus only two weeks left of stats to accrue from players you trade for) and a $36 loan before opening day. That being said, I'm more concerned about the very modest (IMO) return for elite/very good players in Stanton + Contreras
-
I don't want to beat a dead horse. I'm all for vetoes. I'm all for discussion. I even like the transparency behind sharing you vetoed. My point was simply that if you dislike a trade & feel compelled to discuss it, you should not have your vote cast already or make it known which way you voted. You're going to make a case for your point of view & you're physically incapable of reversing your decision - even if you're swayed. In the interim, you're making a case that can influence
-
Well said! And as part of the veto contingent I completely respect your choice to abstain/approve lol
-
All in all, I feel like this is one of the most active and engaging leagues that I’ve encountered on the vast interweb and I enjoy the community. Obviously, when money is involved people are going to have a little more invested, but I feel like this might have just gotten a bit more harried than it needed to be. I don’t think anyone was seriously calling anyone else out, but we should be aware that without speech patterns and intonations, text can be taken in many different ways.
-
That being said, I also see no problem with voicing concerns via the message board, even before a trade has been completed. If someone feels a certain way, they should be welcome to state their case. Open discussion is a crucial part of maintaining an engaged league – and is much more productive in my opinion. But also, I don’t feel that anyone is compelled to defend themselves or justify their actions. No one has broken any of the official rules.
-
For my two cents, I don't think anyone is really in the wrong here. $36 is what seems egregious but it's probably just the timing of the trade that makes it seem that way. Last year during the last week of trading there were loans of 20,24,42 and 50. Two owners agreed to a trade and we're perfectly within our rights to veto it. I’m no lawyer, but given the league construction and rosters involved, I think a reasonable case can be made for either side in the trade, so no veto from me.
-
If that's directed at me, for the record I have no problem with the loan.
-
Additionally...most of you have received or offered me deals. I have several offers/messages from some where you say "Hey, will you do Turner and a loan". So lets stop pretending that the loan is a problem. When it suited your needs, it was ok. When it helped me/Papi come to a deal - now it's a problem. And really, it's not. It's a necessity in-season. Most of you will engage in it later this year. I just choose to do it earier & with a different offer.
-
vetoing is for. All we're doing is essentially YELP!'ing bad experiences. Let it play out and then, by all means, lets discuss and see what's what. The two owners have made their decision. If you disagree but want a better understanding, then don't veto first and tell everyone "hey I vetoed & here's why you should." You're outwardly influencing other people while simultaneously being closed off from swayed to approving the deal. The deal is there. Let people decide w/o being so
-
If I would of known I would create so much drama I would of rejected the deal (Gyroballers : "messes with competitive balance of the league" and "effecting the league potentially for years") ........wow those strong statements especially knowing that I will have to drop good players already next year to keep Stanton at 48$. I will accept the league's decision with serinity
-
Again...the veto button is there for those who want to use it. And I think we should discuss any vetoed deals because I'd think it adds a fun element. Vetoing first, then trying to sell others on vetoing w/you is blatantly self-serving. You've decided your opinion matters more than the two people involved in the actual deal. I disagree w/that is all. After it's done and a deal is vetoed, by all means, discuss/explain. But actively seeking others to join you is not what I think...
-
And lastly, I don't see how it is any more "self-serving" to mention you are vetoing a trade (or even argue in favour of others doing the same), than it is to insist that others should not be allowed to do so! Monologue over plz don't embargo me
-
And the fact that the 7 vetos required to cancel a trade would almost always only come from people who aren't a part of the trade really means that it for all intents and purposes requires 7/10 possible votes, an extremely high bar that is unlikely to be reached for even the most egregious trades unless (and even if) there is some discussion about it.
-
... that you see as bad for the competitive balance of the league, nor do I think there is a problem with mentioning that you are doing so. Same goes for protesting that you think it's a fair trade that should be approved. What is the point of the message board otherwise? There's no use in only complaining about a trade perceived as bad for the league after it goes through.
-
I already know that the response to this will be that it is self-serving, but I really don't understand what the deal is with these unwritten rules about vetos. The threshold to overturn a trade is very high (7+ vetos). My use of a veto is not an accusation of "collusion" or something dumb like that. I regularly approve/abstain on trades that I think are one sided. There's tons of trades where there is a consensus winner that still get approved. I don't see anything wrong with vetoing
-
@money...I wasn't saying you vetoed it. I was disagreeing w/your stance that we should discuss it BEFORE a trade is complete (approved or vetoed). If you dislike a deal, the point of the veto button is to use it. Discussing it in the forum is only self-serving. The two managers made their choice. So the forum just becomes a platform for those who are unhappy w/their sole purpose to convince others to join them. If they hadn't voted & wanted to discuss, that's at least open-minded &am
-
I vetoed the trade based on the fact that Pumpkin is sending him $36, Stanton, and Contrereas for Moncado and 2 guys that may not even play at all this season(1 for sure not playing)
-
I had vetoed it (one of the three), but realized that it was probably not the right thing to do. There is not any collusion and the trade was justified by both people and within the rules. If it does get vetoed, you can override mine.
Barnstormers on
March 27, 2019 3:32 PM
-
What are you talking about? I said I haven't vetoed anything. Do you need a screenshot? When a person does hit the veto button it cannot be undone. I want people to publicly communicate before jumping to a decision based on the surface of the deal. I don't want people to veto and then annonce it. As a Commish, I'm suggesting to you to defend your trade before people rush to hit the veto button based on 3 people not liking it.
-
Also, it effects everyone in the league. This isn't daily fantasy, where everybody can pick up a share of Stanton for the same price. So for the league to just recently value him via auction at $48, and then for someone to get the same player at pennies on the dollar, messes with the competitive balance of the league. Even if he doesn't win, Papi now has players at prices that shouldn't exist on one roster, and he can fire sale at exorbitant returns, effecting the league, potentially, for years.
Jobu’s Rum on
March 27, 2019 3:26 PM
-
Thanks for the clarification, Milk Hotel.
Jobu’s Rum on
March 27, 2019 3:20 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages