-
Initiative is strongly encouraged in this league, PPI (whispered in the PTI voice...)
-
Is someone preparing a report on auction grades and a list of each teams' best and worst buys? I would, but I'm probably the 12th best person in the league to analyze it.
-
Perfect Pitch, Inc.'s trade block has been updated!
-
The Syndicate's trade block has been updated!
-
Seriously guys...you should repropose the trade.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 6:50 PM
-
I would lean more to the sad side of the spectrum.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 2:51 PM
-
This league isn't lacking in passion, no doubt. We debate like this all the time, but it's become just another element of the competition.
-
WAR...not sure if that is awesome or sad. 7 leagues?! Geez, Indy Jones...do you have a life outside of fantasy baseball?!?!
-
PPI - lots of griping, but if nothing else it reveals the commitment level, which is pretty incredible. This is unquestionably my favorite league and I play in 7 of them.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 1:55 PM
-
Although as a team unlikely to compete this year, and having just spent a bunch of auction cash on some bats (and an arm), this is quite interesting.
-
It was delicious. And gone. Sorry, PPI.
-
I just want some of MoPain's popcorn
-
Durham Tobacconists's trade block has been updated!
-
We had a good debate, can keep it in mind for next time. I just fear that unilaterally undoing a trade is going to sour the season more than the trade itself would. Let's move on. Dot org.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 12:26 PM
-
I really think that the original trade should be reproposed. Let the approval process play out. Unlikely that anyone will want to be perceived as having gained Mike Trout by whining. I'm not going to propose any Trout offers.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 12:24 PM
-
Lucky Strikes's trade block has been updated!
-
I'm almost glad I'm at home in the process of a move to Houston...otherwise I would have missed most of this conversation
-
I'm sure everyone always wants to know what someone's best offer already on the table is...well now we do and have agreed to proceed with no hard feelings
-
{Perfect Pitch sitting back thinking..."what have I got myself into?"}
-
fair enough WAR....I am all for discussing how to alleviate this for the future
-
All that can be fixed now by starting from scratch and sending your best offers to WGW. If he trades Trout to any other owner for a package he likes better, I have no problem with it at all. None.
-
Here would have been my response...very competitive offer...however, Gomez had a very high BABIP (for him) last year and Davis comes out of almost nowhere with 50 HRs....I don't think those are the pieces I want to be building around 12 months from now
-
And that a repetitive bad experience is not great for long-term health of the league. Durham summed it up by saying it wasn't against the rules, it just made him not excited to be in the league.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 11:26 AM
-
Bill has no concrete obligation to view X offers before pulling the trigger, but we have to be sensitive to the fact that, in a dynasty league, this broader issue has arisen every year.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 11:25 AM
-
To answer your question WGW, my initial offer probably would have included Carlos Gomez. If you pushed hard enough, I probably would've been willing to structure a deal around Chris Davis, who scored 50 points less than Trout in '13 and costs $50 less.
-
We can debate hard rules and should've / could've all day, but it's pretty clear that this rankled multiple people. The timing, the bidding / shopping process, etc.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 11:23 AM
-
What are proposing?
-
But gree that this is a subjective etiquette point and therefore a difficult line to walk. But several longtime owners have voiced that this was a bad experience, having a kingmaker trade drop out of the sky in March.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 18, 2014 11:21 AM
-
I?m done arguing about it ? I?ll leave it up to WGW to seek offers from anyone interested. I have no problem if someone beats my offer, and I?ve told him as much. Trout is fair game. Doubt the trade would have been vetoed, so we?ll start from scratch.
-
I highly doubt DET posted a league-wide message that Doug Fister was available before moving him to WAS for the exact players they wanted in return.
-
While I will concede it is wise to seek all offers for top players, is it required? I feel perfectly capable of approaching 2-3 owners only if those rosters contain the players I?ve targeted in a return.
-
2) 2) It implies the seller (WGW) has no idea what he?s doing, and that he?s incapable of reviewing each and every roster to determine if it contains players he wants to target.
-
1) 1) It implies that there?s a certain unwritten code that all owners must follow when trading a certain type of player, of which the ?certain type? is also unwritten and debatable.
-
Saying an owner ?should? do this or that with regards to a trade process, etc. implies two things I?m not comfortable accepting that seems to be at the crux of the argument:
-
Regarding Durham?s comments, I?m sensitive to the wisdom of shopping elite players, but?
-
I know price matters...I was loaning you the difference for the season. If it was a $42 McCutcheon, he wouldn't have been traded....as I have told you in other trade proposals
-
I'm only using your own arguments. In the off season you said you never trade a top prospect for Trout in July or August. I assumed it might be different if it were March. Obviously I'm wrong and a $10 Bradley is a better winning piece than a $70 Trout
-
they are mostly pitchers in Salazar and Gray and I would rather have Cole/Yelich and upgrade Baez over Russell
-
Durham...I know you won't actually propose a deal and will let the other one play out....however, would you mind sharing what you would honestly have thought was a fair deal? Because you have some great pieces, but
-
And WGW, same point -- price matters. But as I've said exhaustively the issue was teams not all knowing not return. I am allowed to have my opinion on the substance of the deal right?
-
No, trey, because price matters. Stop pretending it doesn't to try to support your unsupported statement
-
we know you, Duhram and WAR disagree with the process and that is well documented
-
Exactly
-
EP....you keep saying I took a lesser deal, but you wouldn't have traded me a "young SP" knowing that you were keeping the risk while passing on the best player in the game...that is what doesn't make sense
-
Saying you would not move a young unproven SP prospect for a full season of Mike Trout screams "untouchable" to me, no?
-
You made my point for me with a better example: "the return was weak bc of the variability of young SP". I'm questioning your logic why you wouldn't trade Bradley for Trout if he's a young SP. ?
-
*would meet* = "would not have"
-
Also, even with this cherry picking nonsense you can't possibly point to anything that says Bradley is untouchable. All I've said is I wouldn't move him for $70 trout. But please find anything that supports your position
-
Without playing this cherry pick game, are you honestly telling me you didn't understand that point from the posts yesterday?
-
Well luckily if you actually read all my posts you don't need to "draw conclusions" bc I state them clearly, most recently 1134pm last night -- the return was weak bc of the variability of young SP, but I would meet have vetoed and the problem was process
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages