League Message Board
-
I'm very glad to see that the league was inspired by my brilliant trade for Yordan Alvarez. Speaking of which, um: oops! If you can stomach some risk in potentially landing a huge asset for 2026, it is probably wise of me to consider trading him at a discount for some safer 2025 bets.
-
I actually really appreciate the conversation these deals provoked. It's a good reminder that the thing that makes this league fun is that everyone *cares*.
-
Ok. Multiple owners expressed concern about this trade. I was not the first owner to bring up loan limits. It seemed like there was some interest in adjusting. Now perhaps not. "It's part of Ottoneu" is a tautology, not a justification. I've said my piece, I'll pull back.
-
I would definitely oppose adding our own limits on loans because I think these kinds of trades actively help the long-term competitive balance of the league. For whatever reason, we've been resistant to these kinds of deals over the years, and I think that's contributed to the various dynasties we've had. Before this trade, Bixby had 5 of the top 11 surplus players in the league according the surplus calculator. Now he only has four, which makes having the league's 3rd 4-peat less likely.
-
It doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere here, so we don't need the dismissive commentary about other owners who are offering their perspectives. If you don't want to be a part of a trade that includes a loan, or not engage in trades before a certain date, that's your choice. But it is part of Ottoneu nevertheless.
-
And, to point out the stupidly obvious, MLB does not have a salary cap, so we're outside the realm of that particular comparison before we begin.
-
I mean....MLB cash payments in trades do not rise to the level of 20-25% of a team's payroll—certainly not in May!—so I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. If people don't think loan limits are an appropriate solution to the expressed problem....ok. But let's keep things in perspective here, and make sane arguments.
-
I might not be at my most persuasive on this issue at this exact moment, but I’d oppose loan limits. The salary cap is a necessary but unfortunate divergence between Ottoneu and MLB. But the loan function closely mirrors actual MLB transactions, and should be kept on that basis. Plenty of examples - the Mets getting Luisangel Acuña by paying down Scherzer’s salary, for one. Having to include offsetting contracts instead would be more like expiring contracts in NBA trades.
-
I'm not sure what's anti-competitive about it... it's actually a very competitive move by one owner to boost a team to be more competitive now and by another owner to be more competitive in the future. Loans are a part of real life trades too and Ottoneu is designed to mimic real team management. If all trades have to be salary neutral, it would remove the incentives for the vast majority of trades, particularly in points scoring.
-
Regardless, I'd advocate for starting with the problem—some owners find these trades anti-competitive—and not a solution (lowering the number of required vetos)
-
I guess I'd like to see those studies. A rebuilding team can always cut flotsam salary it takes back in a trade. But a competitive team....you want Aaron Judge (or whoever)? Find enough matching salary. My experience in this league has been that the loans are always assumed, and not valued. How much would you have to give up *just* to get $73 in cap space? Presumably a lot more than Brent Rooker. But when it's a trade of players it's valued differently, which is why a cap makes sense to me.
-
I would oppose limits on loans. They are a unique feature of Ottoneu and are designed to allow teams to go for broke with a roster in any given year. I think there have been some studies of limits on loans and they tend to hurt teams that want to rebuild the most since those teams aren't able to get value back by selling off expensive contracts. I think where there might be misaligned views is on how to value those loans in-season and what teams should have to give up to get a star AND a loan.
-
(and ftr I think a loan limit would be a much more appropriate way to curb this kind of trade than forcing people to veto when it's clear the standards for a veto vary. and I would set that limit at like 10 or 20 and not 50 or 75. maybe not a change we should make in-season, though. pro sports limit the amount of cash you can send in a trade, this isn't some crazy off-the-wall idea.)
-
I think the standard for issuing a veto should be something much closer to "is this a trade that would happen in a healthy, competitive league?" which I think is appropriate *especially* in the context of needing somewhere between five and seven people to answer "no" to that question; there is a lot of redundancy built in here when we're requiring that many vetos.
-
I appreciate the openness to adjusting the rules but if the standard for vetoes remains "defend the defeneless" and/or "catch the cheatin' varmints" I'm not sure how much difference it will make. (To be clear I have never meant to imply any nefarious activity occurred, and hope that none of this has come off that way.) I'm still the only one who put in a veto on this despite two other owners expressing some form of "yeah doesn't sit quite right."
-
Wary of minority rule, so maybe 3 is too big of a swing. Rule could be if half of the non-trade involved teams veto then it would be overturned (5 votes).
-
Now that that trade is done, I suggest we alter our veto rules to lower the bar for cancelling a trade from the current majority (so, 7) to something like 3. If folks agree, we can manage this manually using commish tools, in the rare event that it occurs. Thoughts?
-
Yeah still gonna say the evidence presented does not justify that conclusion in any meaningful way, or that even if true (let's pretend!) it has anything to do with the concerns I've expressed
-
I'm not trying to say it's apples to apples - I'm sure there are better examples. Mostly just trying to show that the biggest moves in this league have usually come early.
-
I mean....I guess. Based on the trade history (5/13/2021) Gausman was peaking (and Dominic Smith....existed), and the loan was less than half of this. I'm not sure that justifies rubber stamping this, or that claiming huge loans in May are common.
-
And personally I don't even know if huge loan limits are necessary- each player can have different feelings what they're comfortable with there. Just use the Patrick method when confronted w/ a 4 x 3 massive trade offer from Kris- reject with prejudice on ideological grounds.
-
My 2 cents on vetos generally- I have a pretty high bar. The veto to me is less a tool to enforce competitive balance (player evaluations are subjective and people have different ways to evaluate players, certainly I've seen my fortunes wax and wane in this league), more a tool to enforce against trades that are for reasons other than good faith, alternative player evaluations, etc. I like the "new player makes a trade they don't understand" example above.
-
In the future, if the league wants to talk about something like a loan limit, that might be something to consider - but I feel like there are always work arounds and any rule like that may have unintended consequences/complications
-
So I guess this is just an example that big May deals can be pretty common in this league. Whats maybe a bit different here is that our league has some really expensive players, and also that Dave has been really decisive in identifying who he wants and making big moves.
-
Judge became a star, and I got him back in December 2020 in a star-for-star deal involving Gerrit Cole. But I traded him the next May, a $41 Judge in a deal for a $5 Kevin Gausman and $5 Dominic Smith.
-
As a tangent, I present my history of transacting Aaron Judge. In 2015, I was Judge's original owner, but traded him a month later for $9 Jonathan Papelbon. Whoops. Don't worry, I reacquired him in a big *May 9th* deal the following season, trading Zack Greinke for Judge, Soler and Semien in 2016. I kept him for two weeks before trading him for Howie Kendrick. :(
-
The big loans I think are a function of a few things. One, this is an established league with some expensive stars and some cheap values too. I think we've also seen a lot of seasons where trades are hard to come by, by buyers or sellers, so it makes sense to me that there are eager players to make big moves early (as I was).
-
A few years ago in a different league, I vetoed a couple trades involving the same owner. He seemed to just be dumping higher priced stars for little return, be it in the form of current or future value. He couldn't provide any coherent rationale for why he was proposing the deals (which were obviously accepted) when teams inquired so I felt justified issuing a veto. I don't know if he was in cahoots with other teams or just doing his own bizarre thing but it didn't fit within the game at all.
-
I think there are scenarios where a veto makes sense, mostly around the information that goes into a deal. For example, a new player accepting a lousy deal because they haven't fully understood the economics of the game or a case where it seems a big deal goes down and other teams didn't get a chance to get involved.
-
It seems I'm mostly on an island here and this trade will go through and that is *fine* but the "aw shucks, both sides agreed"-logic is completely ridiculous to me. Is the veto reserved for when one side is forced to trade under knifepoint or is there maybe a single other scenario when it could be considered?
-
that collusion or something similarly nefarious was taking place. I may not personally LOVE how these deals can transform a season in one fell swoop (or two) but there is nothing wrong with them fundamentally. All of the teams involved here have very strong track records as thoughtful and competitive players and I have no reason to suspect that anything has changed
-
Though they are within the rules of Ottoneu, I don't usually like these kinds of trades based around massive loans. This is especially true when we have barely hit May. I've been in other leagues in which similar deals have not only seriously affected competitive balance but have also caused the majority of the league to mentally check out due to frustration which results in a noticable decrease in effort put forth by the league as a whole. However, I would only veto if I was fairly certain...
-
Seems both parties are fine w/ it, so OK. Though I'm open to a $100 collusion conspiracy. Will be on Rooker watch.
-
To be clear it is the timing of this trade that I am objecting to more than the specific valuations. If the 10th place team was making this deal in September that would be completely different. I didn't love the Judge trade either, for the record, and yeah lol of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if Corbin Carroll was in the deal because he's six full years younger than Rooker and despite that has a longer track record.
-
I'd like to urge everyone to vote on this trade. In my eyes we should reverse it if there's even 3 or 4 people who think it shouldn't go through. That said, I think I've demonstrated good sense in player evaluation over the years and I stand by the value I'm getting here. Rooker has a better RoS wOBA projection than Corbin Carroll according to 6 of the 8 projection systems on FanGraphs and I doubt we'd be having this discussion if that's who I was getting back.
-
Drew, thanks for raising your concerns. Others, please weigh in so we have a fulsome discussion here.
-
Is this deal materially different from the Judge+Seager for Wood+Edwards deal that had a $103 loan? There were no vetoes on that deal and I view it as a similar construction. To the previous point, I think our league has been historically less prone to the YOLO trades than other leagues, either because one team is running away with it, or because there are fewer difference-maker players available. I think the deals we're seeing now are more the norm.
-
I hate to weigh in given my current position in the standings and the perception of bias, but given my implication in the last few messages I should at least chime in. I'd first point out that we've historically had *very* few league-veto'd trades in ~15 years. That being said, I don't think we have had a precedent for a deal that requires $73 of loan to make it equitable. Swapping nearly 20% of teams' salary caps in May feels...anti-competitive, at least to me.
-
I'll just chime in that I don't think our goal with a veto should be "Is that a good or bad trade?" but rather "Is there something off here?" If Dave is happy with the value he's getting back in the trade and can explain what he sees, I don't have any concerns about someone getting taken advantage of. That said, no harm in the open discussion here.
-
Also....in terms of surplus value....we're talking about an at-cost outfielder underperforming his projections, a still-injured pitcher, and a decent prospect who has not meaningfully changed his outlook in ~70 ABs. I was offered Ben Brown for Roman Anthony straight-up not two weeks ago.
-
fwiw I passed this around to a few folks including one who writes about fantasy baseball professionally and unanimously got back "yep, veto that"
-
Seems like a pretty equitable trade to me. Dave's spot in the standings is a mirage! There are also like 8 teams in the middle within 200 points of each other so he's not far from the back of the pack either. Freeman and Altuve aren't performing to their salaries so may not be keepers. It makes sense to swap them as rentals to get very keepable pieces. I see no reason to veto.
-
(cont'd) ....multiple teams looking for the highest possible surplus value. I've been clear in those negotiations that I'm targeting difference-maker keepers who make me better going into the draft next year and I haven't gotten a ton of traction with other folks when I've tried to engage on those kinds of guys. Anyway, I'm happy to listen to other perspectives (either here or privately) and veto the trade if needed, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew where I was coming from.
-
(cont'd) ... 5th place at the moment, I don't really see myself as a competitive team this season and I'm looking to retool for next season. I've been targeting specific guys with tons of surplus. Rooker may have a low median salary, but according to the surplus calculator he's the #1 hitter in the league by surplus value, so he's been my top target and Bixby has rightfully been resistant to trading him. I've had all those guys on my trade block and have been actively shopping them to...
-
I'll gladly veto the trade if there's opposition to it, but I'll also explain my perspective and aims for it. I came into the season with mediocre projections from Justin Vibber's surplus calculator and Adam Kaufman's standings forecaster and then was in last place on April 14th when I committed to the rebuild and starting the Judge negotiations. At this point, I have the worst pitching in the league and middle of the pack hitting and have already sent out a $100 loan, so even though I'm in...
-
I put in a veto on that most recent trade. I don't understand why the 5th place team is selling off 3 of his 5 most expensive players—on May 5th—for Brent Rooker at his median price, an injured pitcher, and Fangraphs' 59th-rated prospect. And *heavily* financing the deal on top.
-
That is very fun. Kind of wild that Tatis was never cut during his problematic years but it looks to have paid off
-
Longest held from auction: 1-Wheeler 2-Seager 3-Jose Altuve, Joe Ryan, Jasson Dominguez, Shohei Ohtani (3/4/21)
-
Longest active contracts on same roster 1-Fernando Tatis (acquired 8/22/17) 2-Jose Ramirez (11/21/17) 3-Zack Wheeler (2/26/18) 4-Ketel Marte (7/6/18) 5-Austin Riley (11/21/18) 6-Rafael Devers (11/30/18) 7-Kyle Tucker (8/10/19) 8-Brandon Nimmo (8/28/19) 9-Yordan Alvarez (1/24/20) 10-Corey Seager (3/21/20) 11-Adley Rutschman (7/4/20) 12-Hunter Greene (9/27/20)
-
Possibly only of interest to me but I had meant to post this on opening day
Next 50 messages