-
Pretty sure all times listed are EST, so that means draft time is 2 EST tomorrow.
-
I am no longer able to change the time, so I am simply trying to figure out if the time is uniform on the league home for all time zones or if it changes depending on your location. I am thinking the draft is 2:00 EST.
sabrsplit on
March 7, 2015 6:57 PM
-
doesnt matter just dont want to be late
-
I'm fine with 2PM EST though as well.
Lamoka 🏹 on
March 7, 2015 6:03 PM
-
My understanding was 3PM EST also
Lamoka 🏹 on
March 7, 2015 6:02 PM
-
My understanding was 3PM EST also
Lamoka 🏹 on
March 7, 2015 6:01 PM
-
I am extremely sorry for the confusion. Let's make sure we have a consensus on the time. I am assuming I was wrong to think the league home was showing our time zone and instead it is showing EST time. So that makes the draft time 2:00 EST tomorrow. Let me know if you think this is incorrect.
sabrsplit on
March 7, 2015 5:57 PM
-
I am in central and assumed it was showing me my time zone
sabrsplit on
March 7, 2015 5:48 PM
-
which is it 2 or 3 Eastern
-
Shows as 2 PM for me too.
-
No, Eastern.
-
Are you in central time?
sabrsplit on
March 7, 2015 5:31 PM
-
The homepage says 2 pm, which is the correct time?
-
Gentlemen,
I sent an email but also want to post here. This is just a reminder the annual draft for The Sabermetric League of Statistical Analysis will take place tomorrow at 3:00 PM EST. Looking forward to it!
sabrsplit on
March 7, 2015 4:51 PM
-
I hope you prove me wrong Boilermakers. It wouldn't be the first time...
-
:( At least my expectations are low. Anything better than last place is gravy!
-
Hey anything can happen, and nothing is set in stone right now.
-
thanks...lots of work to do!
-
I have your team 9th for the record.
-
I thought Choo's chose poorly........LOL
-
That unfortunate distinction goes to Boilermakers.
-
awesome! care to divulge which team is last?
-
I use a blend of 5 different projection systems, but Steamer is the most heavily weighted.
-
did you use steamer? or some other projection? just curious.
-
Just for fun I ran everyone's keepers through my value system to determine the Top 5 teams pre-auction: 1. The SABRmagician 2. Urban Shockers 3. WARriors 4. Make WAR Not Love 5. Fly Eli's Evian Showers
-
This should not be an issue because of cellphones & computers these days, but just wanted to make sure everyone knows march 8th is the day the time changes. dont want any1 to show up an hour late. looking forward to the draft!
The Fish 🐠 🎣 on
February 25, 2015 4:06 PM
-
that is awesome....draft should be super competitive
-
Our league ranked second place for most trades in the ottoneu offseason. Way to keep the league active and competitive guys!
sabrsplit on
February 5, 2015 6:37 PM
-
Theo's Wunderkids's trade block has been updated!
Red PaperCatz on
February 5, 2015 12:29 PM
-
The SABRmagician's trade block has been updated!
sabrsplit on
February 4, 2015 1:05 PM
-
It is not necessarily a set in stone rule that one for nothing trades are now allowed in this league. These types of trades can be very subjective and owners have the responsibility to review each one individually.
sabrsplit on
February 3, 2015 12:14 PM
-
Fly Eli's Evian Showers's trade block has been updated!
-
KC Royals WS champs in 2014's trade block has been updated!
-
i would note that in today's ottoneu column by brad Johnson, he has a trade of a $3 tropeano for nothing gin return. so other teams/leagues do the same thing. fwiw. anyhoo...best of luck to all and cant wait for the draft!
-
6 veto and 3 abstain is hardly an endorsement, but it has precedence now and so its in the rules.
-
I should say it's unfair to target the champ or anybody else
-
You're right-it's unfair to target the champ, my apologies. But without getting into a philosophical discussion of the veto, it's safe to say that this is a non-normal trade, so the usual veto etiquette does not apply. I suppose it's for each owner to decide what should happen, and that's the great thing about the approve/veto process. But it should be noted that 3 approved and 6 vetoed the Dee Gordon trade, so I wouldn't call that resounding support of this type of deal...
-
the league voted and approved. its a done deal we can trade "overpriced" players for no other consideration. I'm game.
-
I'm not sure it's a valid reason to veto just because you would like to have the player or to stick it to another owner. I'm as competitive as the next guy and it's fair enough to want to knock off the champ, but I think the only valid reason to veto a trade is if it's collusive or undermines the integrity of the game. If there's an argument for that, I'd be interested to hear it, but I can't justify a veto just to hurt SABR or to try to get Appel cheaper.
Lamoka 🏹 on
February 1, 2015 11:39 PM
-
There's nothing illegal in the rules about these trades-SABR has a point that he wants to see overpriced players on other teams' rosters. But a veto is perfectly valid if you would rather see the player in the FA pool and have a shot at him for cheaper. A veto in this case would also temporarily stick SABR with a player he doesn't want past the free cut deadline...
-
These trades are not simply giving away players. I am not giving up a $10 Mike Trout. I am giving away a player I thought was too expensive. Now, the player I deemed as too expensive will be on someone else's roster. If he cuts him later, it's a $4 cap hit. You cannot simply subject all something for "nothing" trades to one group.
sabrsplit on
February 1, 2015 1:57 PM
-
I will do what the league decides but "trading" one player for no one else isn't a trade, imho. especially when the player could be cut with no penalty to the cap. at least if it was a trade to free up cap space it would be SOMETHING. not nothing like what was done. I would also point out that next year I could decide to just give away players rather than return them to the FA pool. there are consequences beyond just these 2 trades.
-
I think this discussion also shows that sometimes it's tough to know who other owners think is overvalued or undervalued. You can see somewhat from the trade block, but it takes work both to market your players effectively and to shop for players you want to acquire. At least real GM's have phone and face to face meetings, but I imagine that aspect is a real challenge for them also.
Lamoka 🏹 on
February 1, 2015 12:58 PM
-
I think this discussion also shows that sometimes it's tough to know who other owners think is overvalued or undervalued. You can see somewhat from the trade block, but it takes work both to market your players effectively and to shop for players you want to acquire. At least real GM's have phone and face to face meetings, but I imagine that aspect is a real challenge for them also.
Lamoka 🏹 on
February 1, 2015 12:57 PM
-
Choo's, I think you have a valid concern regarding future favors. I don't think there's a place in Ottoneu for that. But if one owner believes a player is overpriced and is not keeping him, they do have a strategic reason to cut salary. If they are correct that the player is overpriced, it also puts the acquiring team at a disadvantage in cost and a roster spot. So I'm ok with it in that context. If it was a $28 Dee Gordon, the analysis is easy.
Lamoka 🏹 on
February 1, 2015 12:53 PM
-
As far as trading goes, who is to say I am not getting something I want in return? And no, that does not include a favor in return later.
sabrsplit on
February 1, 2015 12:47 PM
-
We had 1 team fail to make cuts by the deadline and I have not heard from the owner in months, so I decided to abandon the team. Welcome to the new owner!
sabrsplit on
February 1, 2015 12:45 PM
-
Just picked up KC and made my cuts, looking forward to this league! As far as the trade goes, it's fine by me - along the lines of a team trading a player for a minor ptbnl.
-
a trade is exchanging one thing for another--if there is nothing on the other side its not a trade. there is nothing preventing the player from being dropped. it also sets up the potential for a future "favor" --if there are players being given away, more than one owner would take a cheap Gordon for nothing. the league can decide what it likes, but I vote no
-
a trade is exchanging one thing for another--if there is nothing on the other side its not a trade. there is nothing preventing the player from being dropped. it also sets up the potential for a future "favor" --if there are players being given away, more than one owner would take a cheap Gordon for nothing. the league can decide what it likes, but I vote no
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages