-
The Kempire Strikes Back's trade block has been updated!
-
I think Laser and I going for the Ottoneu all time record for lead changes. Seems like we've swapped the lead 3 times a day for 2 months now.
-
Logan Square Stickmen's trade block has been updated!
Orange Crush on
June 20, 2017 10:19 AM
-
The Makers of the Sexy's trade block has been updated!
USS Mariner on
June 19, 2017 11:03 PM
-
Laser Showalter 🏆🏆🏆's trade block has been updated!
-
Urban Achievers's trade block has been updated!
-
Urban Achievers's trade block has been updated!
-
The Kempire Strikes Back's trade block has been updated!
-
The Kempire Strikes Back's trade block has been updated!
-
Knights 🏆's trade block has been updated!
-
Making a few offers today trying to fill some holes, if any are close and you want to discuss message me on slack. @mdugent.
-
The Makers of the Sexy's trade block has been updated!
USS Mariner on
June 16, 2017 12:41 AM
-
John Martin Kruk's trade block has been updated!
-
Ironic if he is hurt to the point that he has to go to DL. (Not that I am wishing that he goes to the DL, mind you.)
USS Mariner on
June 12, 2017 9:33 PM
-
Ironic because it was the third inning?
-
I find it ironic after the past few days that Chris Davis just left the game presumably with an injury since it was the third inning.
USS Mariner on
June 12, 2017 9:23 PM
-
You're welcome. I came in thinking I could be top 3 if everything broke right. It hasn't. So I will hoard young cheap assets, and make trades when I get good offers. If you feel the need to demean me because I decided to take a terrible offer public, then Props to you for filling that gaping hole with fantasy baseball. I've enjoyed this league for the most part, and it looks like Knights, Urban Achievers and Makers of Sexy have one less competitor for my tradeable players.
Orange Crush on
June 12, 2017 5:23 PM
-
Thanks for the donation this season.
-
I got a Clay Bucholz offer too. Is that better? I can't tell.
Orange Crush on
June 12, 2017 5:17 PM
-
If I wanted Chris Davis I'd take him here. If I get an offer that completely wastes my time I'm gonna put it on blast. If this is a good offer why should you care if I publicize it? Should get you more action.
Orange Crush on
June 12, 2017 5:16 PM
-
I would accept if Alex Cobb was included personally...
USS Mariner on
June 12, 2017 5:16 PM
-
Oh, we're making trade offers public now? Someone's still butthurt about Chris Davis.
-
Chris Davis, JP Crawford, Jose DeLeon and Josh Bell for a $4 Cody Bellinger. Should I accept this?
Orange Crush on
June 12, 2017 5:11 PM
-
John Martin Kruk's trade block has been updated!
-
Welcome Chap! Great to have an experienced owner and slack board user in the league. Good luck with the rebuild - great start already getting Thor!
-
Urban Achievers's trade block has been updated!
-
The Kempire Strikes Back's trade block has been updated!
-
Hey all, my name is Chap and just took over the Wolverines (soon to be renamed). Just scanning through and saw the discussion about weak trades altering 1st place - I think we're all in agreement that I won't trade an asset like Kemp for pennies on the dollar. But I'm definitely in rebuilding mode, so send reasonable offers my way!
-
Ok so sounds like everyone ok with the change in ownership but against changing the veto rules - we'll go that route. Thanks everyone.
-
Ok to removal and No to veto change
-
Fine with replacing Wolverines but against changing the veto rules.
-
Keeping it as high as 6 means teams not necessarily in the race would need to veto as well. It wouldn't be as easy as one of the top 3 teams complaining.
-
The intent is to apply extra scrutiny to the deals of a new owner so bad deals don't upset the race at the top. I'm not sure it's necessary but wanted to raise it as an option for rest of league. While I want a new owner to be able to rebuild I don't want a Kemp, Abreu and Andrew Miller for some Prospect just picked up yesterday deal to alter the race. Basically lower the veto bar from collusion to 'that's dumb and hurts the league this season.' Would accomplish via Commish Tools.
-
I have no problem with finding a new owner for Wolverines, but I don’t understand why we’d change the veto process mid-season and if its even possible.
-
OK for dropping Wolverines and OK to change the veto to 6.
-
No objection here. I like the idea of lowering the veto to 6 as well
-
Hi Everyone - Abandoning Wolverines this week unless there are any objections. We could (if people are concerned about how a new owner impacts the league) set a lower veto bar for the new owners trades until the offseason - say 4-6. Let me know what your thoughts are. I'd rather make the move now than wait until the offseason so we can give an owner a chance to get the rebuild started.
-
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/ottoneu-power-rankings-may-2017/
Laser popping up at number 2 in FGPts Power Rankings. Nice work
-
The Fulminators's trade block has been updated!
-
I'm not sure a veto is appropriate, but I wanted to point out how bad of a trade it is. There is very little chance the prospects will be part of any future team. Fulminators would have been better cutting Davis and freeing half his cap space (at least).
-
I actually disagree with that on a couple of counts. The 2013 and 2015 version of Davis is a 6+ PPG player. The 2016 and 2017 version is not. He's at 5.3 PPG both seasons, which isn't particularly special for a 1B only. Mitch Moreland, who is available, is doing the same. My Logan Morrison is crushing him right now. Also, the Fulminators and I have had discussions on trades. I showed no interest in Davis. I imagine if I showed some that we would have exchanged offers.
USS Mariner on
June 8, 2017 4:33 PM
-
Also, If you are considering moving a player at 6 pts a game, why not see if anyone else will pay more? From comments, sounds like no attempt at shopping for better deal. In most cases I don't mind if there's no attempt to shop a player, but when the best you get back is two waiver wire prospects that are unowned in 80% of leagues maybe it would've made sense.
-
I think the message board is a good place for these discussions. What makes the trade egregious to me is if Fulminators wanted these prospects he could've had them for $1 without needing a trade - simply bid on them at auction over the last 3 weeks.
-
I knew what you were saying. It is so tough to get a veto (even though I won't be voting to veto this trade) without any type of discussion. In another league of mine, a less than normal valued Trout (I think like $57) was traded for three non-elite RP's and could not even get more than two veto votes.
USS Mariner on
June 8, 2017 4:23 PM
-
Good points. I think its a bad trade, too, but that doesn't particularly matter as the only recourse we have available is to veto. That was my only point. I'm definitely not trying to discourage posting. I think we could use more of it.
-
Not to mention that even if there is an egregious trade, Ottoneu makes it pretty difficult to veto since you need 7 out of 10 (not counting the two teams in the trade). In this league, it would only be out of 9 since we have the dead team. Saying that, I am cool with teams bringing up objections on the message board because it isn't as easy as just voting to veto a trade that someone thinks is not fair.
USS Mariner on
June 8, 2017 3:50 PM
-
I honestly don't find this trade to be as bad as others. Would I have made it? No, but others may have different opinions of certain prospects than I do. The thing not being discussed is with 1B only guys is that it is tough to get fair value for them. Almost every team already has a good one. If they don't, they can get Moreland on the wire, who is basically doing the same as Davis.
USS Mariner on
June 8, 2017 3:42 PM
-
I hate in season veto in most cases but that is basically giving Chris Davis away. Not only we're both guys just picked up on waivers, but nobody else even bid on them!
-
John Martin Kruk's trade block has been updated!
-
Two prospects with 20%ish ownership was enough for Davis? I need to make more offers.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages