-
I still think I can make a run at the 2014 title.
-
Please wait until at least March 30th, PPI.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 12:56 PM
-
Is now when I say that I've got a few vets to help your run at the title? No, not yet? Ok, in a little while.
-
+1
-
I don't understand the hurry to trade the best player in baseball two weeks before the season even begins.
-
I'm okay with the trade if that's the best WGW could do but I don't know how he answered that question in 24 hours. I hadn't even seen that Trout was available by the time he was traded.
-
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/so-your-keeper-league-has-too-many-fire-sales/
-
I'd at least like those numbers to mean something in March... I feel like that's reasonable.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:54 AM
-
It's just a function of players' salaries... Right... Those being our leagues primary indicators of player value!
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:53 AM
-
A) nobody would look at a Yu / Trout trade and say "fair trade." mainly because it would not happen. B) the argument that a loan of 20 and a loan of 70 are basically the same thing is just ludicrous.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 10:52 AM
-
I guess I meant, "hey, changing the subject" XD
-
Not to change the subject, but Taijuan likely to move today if anyone wants to dive in..
-
If Trout were somehow traded for a $16 Darvish (hypothetical), not one person would complain about the loan, yet it would be $54. We would have all said "fair trade" and moved on.
-
WGW can speak to his own strategy, but my assumption is that he kept Trout at $70 knowing he would/could deal him early in 2014 for a big return...and a return that would help him compete in 2015. WGW got three franchise players to add for 2015
-
WGW said Trout was available. He told me four teams were in on him, so at least four teams. Had equal opportunity to acquire him. The amount of the loan is irrelevant if every single team asking for Trout needed one to get it done.
-
If you made an offer for Trout, you would have needed a loan to get him. Whether it's $20, $30, $50, or $65, you still need the loan. Why is $25 ok when $65 is not? The $ is just a factor of the salary of the players I offered vs yours.
-
Why is that true?
-
And on opening day it will be undermined because no other team can significantly increase their available cap until teams fall out of the race, i.e. Months from now.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 9:44 AM
-
That player now takes up 20% of his roster cap.
-
Again, for me it is just the timing of it. We can all theoretically have $500 salaries this year, but we can't all *begin* the year with that. The cap is our leagues main mechanism for ensuring competitive balance.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 9:42 AM
-
Fister is a non factor... Not even really that good when fully healthy. Trey got the game's best player and a top 10 prospect whom he can flip for some other veteran down the line... He's assuming no risk here, it's pure profit for this season.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 9:40 AM
-
It's not like Trey didn't take on some significant risk in bringing on Fister with "elbow inflammation"
-
I was able to maximize my return for Trout by giving him away to the highest bidder so they could have them for the whole season as oppose to a portion of it
-
I definitely see your point, but how does being two months into the season change the fact that Trey would have had a much larger cap? My cap was almost $600 last year and still lost.
-
It's like, where's my $470 salary cap? Not only do none of the other competitors get to begin the season with that -- we didn't have equal opportunity to begin the season with it.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 7:27 AM
-
I'm not trying to incite anyone else to veto. Just stating my opinion. If the salaries are meaningful league-wide player valuations, then this is a grossly imbalanced trade at a point in the season where it can really wreck competitive balance.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 17, 2014 7:26 AM
-
I wasn't competing this year and I may even get the chance to bid on Trout again next year. At the end of the day, I significantly helped my talent for next year which was the goal
-
I personally don't think Baez for Russell is a wash. Russell isn't bad or average at all, but I do think that Baez is a step above. Sure Strikes gets to add Trout for the whole season, but none of the other offers gave me the same talent level in return
-
Again, just my 2 cents.
-
We have trusted each other to do what is best for our team, even though we may not always agree. But in my opinion, there is no reason to start going down that path. We all started the season with 'confidence' in our team. After Fri night, free game.
-
I won't be vetoing. My reason is simple. We are all probably in the top 1% 'baseball savvy' fantasy baseball participants. We are all capable of running our teams with prudence. We haven't been a league to hammer each other on the rules.
-
So loans can't be covered in March or April but they can in May or June? Jed is right that it isn't typical, but it's not against the rules, and Trout's contract isn't typical either. He's at least $15 more expensive than the next highest player.
-
If Trout were $25 he wouldn't be dealt.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 16, 2014 11:15 PM
-
I'm usually one to say let every deal play out, but I'm leaning toward veto on this too. $65 trading hands in March seems a bit ridiculous.
Caimans 🐊 on
March 16, 2014 11:14 PM
-
Sure, they may be atypical, but that doesn't make it wrong or competitively imbalanced. If Trout was $25, would this still be a crazy deal to veto in your mind?
-
The issue isn't the loan being covered, it's the $65 delta between the two packages. I really don't understand it. In July, fine. But preseason huge cash loans are *not* typical in our league, so let's not act like they are.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:43 PM
-
We've discussed the loan system for years, but it's part of the rules, and everyone has equal access to the loan coming back. Most teams have $3 or less; not sure how anyone trades for a Trout, Braun, Verlander, etc without the loan covered
-
A preseason $65 loan really effs up the competitive balance for the contending teams. The rest of us can't begin the 2014 season with $470 in cap space.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:30 PM
-
Ideally you don't begin a season with one team having $70 more cap space than any other team.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:28 PM
-
Baez has the highest offensive ceiling of just about any prospect in baseball. I see a measurable difference between Baez and Russell in fantasy. Russell is great, but he's also highly ranked b/c he will stick at SS
-
So, why veto here. You think the deal is that lopsided?
-
I'm not of the opinion that you only veto in clear cases of collusion. If it's actual collusion you don't veto, you leave the league.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:25 PM
-
He was going to give me $20something, I believe.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:24 PM
-
WAR said he'd veto, not you EP. I don't see veto as something you'd do at this point, but that's just my opinion. This isn't collusion...just a matter of opinion.
-
I mean, how much more valuable is Baez than Russell? More power, slightly accelerated ETA. Hard to call Baez a difference-maker. He's just a top-10 prospect like Russell is until he proves otherwise.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:22 PM
-
anyway, I didn't say I'd veto it, I just said if you were going to keep a $70 Trout as part of a rebuild, I would have thought he could have brought back more of a prospect than betting it all on one SP
-
give me a break, Baez and Russell are basically the same guy, down to the price, at this point they're the same asset so that's why you ignore them and the two RPs
-
Both parties agreed. WGW isn't throwing the season. No need to veto it unless your reason is, "I veto all Lucky trades..." Let it play out.
-
Was WGW going to cover the entire loan in your deal, Jed?
-
I'm against massive cash exchanges broadly speaking, but I'm really against them in the middle of March.
Eckfords ⚾ on
March 16, 2014 10:19 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages