-
I'm not looking for an immature debate, four horsemen. And you asking myself and Y & R to leave the league is exactly the problem here. No one can speak up against the lunacy or they have to deal personal insults the tough bully horsemen who dubbed the name "terrible owner" to begin with. I had players taken off of my team and I'm standing up for my rights. You can start calling names and telling people to leave the league but i put in way too much work accruing way too many pr
-
I am somewhat divided on if and how many trades should have been reversed, because that is subjective - but if anyone disagrees that removing him was an appropriate action, then either you or I will not be playing in this league next year.
WAR Horse on
August 3, 2017 3:39 PM
-
Of course there was good reason, unfortunately, to be concerned about the competence AND integrity of HORRIBLE OWNER...which is why he was removed from the league. No veto process necessary.
WAR Horse on
August 3, 2017 3:38 PM
-
I try, as much as I can, to only play in leagues where every owner is a good owner. In such leagues, having a veto process is unnecessary. If anyone is concerned about having a veto process, then basically what they're saying is, they don't trust either the integrity or the competence of the other owners they are playing with. I don't want to play in a league where people have those concerns. That is not a healthy league.
WAR Horse on
August 3, 2017 3:31 PM
-
I'm struggling to follow any of Four Horsemen's logic.
-
I have absolutely zero to desire to return to any league where even a single owner thinks vetoing a trade could possibly ever be appropriate, in this type of Ottoneu environment. If you guys are worried about playing with strangers who do dumb trades or might collude, then Yahoo is that way --------->. Presumably that's where HORRIBLE OWNER is headed, I would suggest you join him there, since you guys like him so much.
WAR Horse on
August 3, 2017 3:01 PM
-
But it doesn't matter in any case. In my opinion, Lake Bell and Young and Hopeless should voluntarily leave this league after the season, since their view on what is appropriate (not just now, but over the course of the season and pre-season) seems to run very counter to what a plurality of other owners think is appropriate. If that does not happen, it is hard to envision a path to this league existing next year.
WAR Horse on
August 3, 2017 2:47 PM
-
Four Horsemen approves the commissioner's moves.
WAR Horse on
August 3, 2017 2:44 PM
-
dont believe so? fly eli, lake bell, four horsemen, young and hopeless, royals and make war have voiced their concerns/displeasure... so that makes 6 who disapprove of your moves. not counting Horrible Owner, who didnt get a say at all, or a chance to defend his actions
-
So it seems like 5 of us (I don't think the owner in question should get a vote) are against the actions taken leaving 6 of us who approve.
sabrsplit on
August 3, 2017 2:12 PM
-
The Tyrannical Dictator's trade block has been updated!
sabrsplit on
August 3, 2017 2:10 PM
-
if it was, he would just tweet us the decisions he has made. not post them on this board :)
-
Apologies in advance: at least it's not Trump.
-
I want marte and puig back on my team and i want the commish who represents us to stop having minority power meetings on slack where he then kicks people out of the league and reverses legit trades where someone other than himself gets players. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. It's like Dick cheney and Donald Rumsfeld having meetings in their back office and then crushing any resistance.
Red PaperCatz on
August 3, 2017 12:02 PM
-
Running tally of owners who are not in favor of how this was handled: 6 (+1 for H.O. rip)
-
Net losses: Duffy $3, Rizzo $41, J Wilson $1, CJ Edwards $7, S Miller $1, Marte $21, Puig $20, Moniak $1, Longoria $22
Net adds: Lamet $5, Acuna $2, F Whitley 2, Soler $13, Ramos $4, Giolito $6, Hader $4, Rutherford $1, Gurriel $2
I don't see the intentional decimation angle. We know it's a buyer's market in which prospects like Acuna are fetishized. Duffy's a mystery but every other big name cut/moved was at or above par. One can dislike the returns but that gets back to opinions of value
-
Why didn't the league get to decide if Horrible Owner should have been kicked out? Why didn't the league get to decide whether to reverse the trades? The unilateral nature is what bothers me. "Deciding" that trades are not for the good of the league when the league members seem to disagree doesn't seem like something a transparent and fair commission would do.
-
So now you are saying that all the other owners wouldn't veto a different trade? So it's basically just one big collusion ring? Wtf
-
I'm on a high horse just because my opinion is different than yours? I think he was clearly trying to sabotage his team and I don't think there's a good rationale for any of the trades after the name change or the cut of EE. I've played with that owner in other leagues and have not seen him make decisions like that with other teams. The intent is clear to me. The veto process can't account for that because no owner who's ripped the guy off is going to want to vote against other ripoff trades.
Lamoka 🏹 on
August 3, 2017 10:05 AM
-
I'm sorry Warriors, but you need to get off Sabr's ____... and your high horse. there are atleast 5 current owners and im assuming the one we kicked (without a vote) that disagree with how this has been handled, so it does not help the situation when you are acting how you are. Also, by that count, that'd equal 6 owners who would not agree, thus not giving the vote a majority. oh wait, thats right, no voting in dictatorships.
-
And again, if we're going to venture into judging someone's intent (to the point of booting them) on whether we agree with their moves, why don't we use our vetoes instead? Without attacking someone else's integrity, it is possible to say that you disagree with a move, wouldn't make it, and would like to see the deal re-worked. The ability to vote on permission or veto of individual deal is so much more democratic than having a judge/jury/executioner ruling that I thought we hated so much in 164
-
I'll bet that the free cap he got from cutting made that the best move available for EE at the time, given the message board shaming on the non-keeper status of the players he got back for Duffy. So here we have an owner who might've actually been in a teachable moment, realizing that salaries are as important as resumés in determining 2018 value, and he gets kicked out? Looks bad for our league and ottoneu.
-
Yeah I'd argue that the booted owner's intent wasn't malicious. Pointing to the tongue-in-cheek name change as a justification that his moves were meant to tank is questionable, especially when we're talking about booting someone in-season. The only truly bad trade IMO was the Duffy deal, which was somehow the only one allowed to stand. Was cutting EE the move that was deemed self-destructive?
-
If you guys disagreed with whether that was actually the owner's intent I could understand it, but it seems like you're just arguing that it's totally cool for an owner to intentionally cut or give away their best players just out of spite for the league. I don't understand that point of view at all.
Lamoka 🏹 on
August 2, 2017 6:34 PM
-
Not sure how SABR is a hypocrite when he even overturned one of his own trades with HORRIBLE OWNER. Sure, this requires you to think about the good of the league instead of just your own team. But when you actually think about what it does to the integrity of a title race and the long-term health of a league if you allow an owner to destroy their own team, this is a very obvious decision.
Lamoka 🏹 on
August 2, 2017 6:30 PM
-
OK "disingenuous smarm" for stating that it's bad for the league to allow an owner to intentionally decimate their team. Makes a lot of sense.
Lamoka 🏹 on
August 2, 2017 6:28 PM
-
what sabr did is total fucking bulllshit, and he's a fucking hypocrite given the shit he gave to the commish of 164 over reversing trades. i'll probably get booted now too lol.
-
warriors, i'll cut the snark if you cut the disingenuous smarm, how's that sound lol
-
if you want to put cut players back on his team that's one thing, but to take players off my team and others that i received in trades that WEREN"T VETOED is absolutely AGAINST THE RULES of ottonue and mean that you are making up your own rules as you go. That's not OK, man. You just got 4 of the top players in one trade. Can we go back and decide to reverse it because it was terrible? No. That's what veto is for. I'm not gonna just let this go. When trade is not vetoed. It's DONE.
-
Wil Myers is going to be rented out. Send offers.
WAR Horse on
August 2, 2017 3:20 PM
-
Four Horsemen's trade block has been updated!
WAR Horse on
August 2, 2017 2:24 PM
-
Niv was able to reverse the loans. Everything should be clear now.
sabrsplit on
August 2, 2017 12:52 PM
-
yup, i am firmly in Lake Bell's camp. i understand you think the trades hurt the potential for a future owner, but where were you when it was impacting the original owner? There was nothing saying that owner would have stuck around for next year anyway.
-
You don't even vote on things? SABR and WARiors have a slack meeting to decide our future?! You're all okay with this? Does Anyone who hasn't spoken have an opinion on this? We don't play this league on Slack. This reminds me of when the 5 milb got pushed through on slack ( so sabr would have more trade pieces) with sabr and WARriors getting first two picks after they finished first and second in our league. Are you seeing a pattern here?
Red PaperCatz on
August 2, 2017 10:50 AM
-
And I have never in all my ottonue leagues experienced a commissioner who decides things on a different site and then overturns trades from the past. That's what a veto is for. I won't give up this fight until my players are back on my team. Puig is pissed. He was right at home on my last place team.
Red PaperCatz on
August 2, 2017 10:31 AM
-
With all the the trades you do that we don't have the right to overturn, You are now pulling a militant dictatorship and playing God dude. You have your Slack conversations and if someone agrees with you you just go and do whatever you want in this league. It's not alright. We paid to be in this league. I want my trade back or that's it for me. Marte has already been on my team accruing points. What the hell is going on here?! Been an active member of this league..,,,,
Red PaperCatz on
August 2, 2017 10:24 AM
-
This doesn't imply anybody thinks the trades should have been vetoed. It was simply about turning back the clock on an account amidst the aftermath of a rogue owner.
sabrsplit on
August 2, 2017 10:19 AM
-
again, people could have veto'd the trades. If we are just reversing player drops/adds after the name change, then fine. But everyone had the opportunity to veto the deals. Just looked back at the last 5 deals, and there was a total of 5 veto votes between them all. So this is very very questionable IMO and is more or less, bullshit. Why does this league have rules if we are just going to continually bend/brake them?
-
The trades were reversed because I don't think the owner's intentions were positive for the league after the name change
sabrsplit on
August 1, 2017 10:19 PM
-
I could do without the snark
Lamoka 🏹 on
August 1, 2017 9:55 PM
-
i'm no lawyer though, so you may have to break this down for us laypersons
-
in which case, the trade would/should have been vetoed, according to a process / norms we all implicitly agree upon when joining, but they went through so...
-
okay
-
The free market only works when everyone is actually trying to act in the best interests of their team. The HORRIBLE OWNER pretty obviously wasn't.
Lamoka 🏹 on
August 1, 2017 9:02 PM
-
All that to say that I agree. If the trades were that egregious, they would/should have been vetoed. No need for the commish to unilaterally overturn them.
-
I know it's 301 ;) 164 is a reference to a league that some of us have been in (including commish) and criticized for overreach by commissioner. Funny how the "free market" rhetoric from some corners disappears when it's convenient.
-
301.... and I agree, if people had an issue with a trade, the veto button worked. We'd already explored that option once before.
-
Is this league 164 or 301?
-
This league is too funny sometimes.
-
Are you guys kidding. You didn't VETO a trade. But then remove players from my team a week later?! He made me an offer and I accepted. You didn't veto. Now you can't come in like a dictator and remove players from my team. Does anyone else find this crazy??!! There's been some wacky stuff happening in this league but this is where I draw the line. Not cool. That's what vetos are for
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages