-
Chicago Chiefs's trading block has been updated!
-
Will entertain offers for Joey Votto. This does not mean I will move him (I'm willing to keep him at $51 next year), but if you can better my team with an offer, I'm willing to make the move. Not looking for just prospects, I want legitimate studs.
-
McCann purely speculative for next season - I only have 29 C Games Played left available and I expect Pierzynski to get all of them.
Caimans 🐊 on
August 28, 2012 10:34 AM
-
I thought about doing the same thing a few times, but I feel I absolutely have the lineup to win it. My pitching needs to come around though if I am to have a chance.
Caimans 🐊 on
August 28, 2012 10:31 AM
-
How many players have I given away to the Knights in the past two weeks? Really hoping it doesnt come back to bite me...
-
Confirmed with Niv - trades must be accepted (not executed) by the deadline
-
I think I accurately assessed that I had no chance with or without my superstars....after that I didn't want to be caught in a middle ground between competing and suckitude. Hence the housecleaning.
Eckfords ⚾ on
August 28, 2012 9:10 AM
-
Absolutely no reason to come in 2nd or 3rd place if you really can't win the championship. Might as well retool; I think Billy Beane said as much just a few years ago...
-
Jed, while I still believe you traded your way out of the chance for a championship (Felix, Pujols, CarGo, etc.), I admire your decision to fold guns blazing, because it's exactly what I would do too.
-
I think executed - should be accepted though.
Caimans 🐊 on
August 28, 2012 8:20 AM
-
I wasnt a part of this league at this time last year, but I would think/hope that you could accept up until the deadline as long as the system will still process it
-
I think we had this question last year but can't remember the answer: Do trades have to be accepted by the trade deadline or actually executed by the deadline? I think it's executed, correct?
-
There are quite a few albatross contracts left, though I don't know if they're being shopped
-
Not sure there are any more true albatross contracts out there, but if anyone is looking to dump a big contract before the deadline, let me know. Plenty of cash to give.
-
Enrico Palazzo's trading block has been updated!
-
I don't really understand the Barry Bonds thing, is that drop/add a joke?
-
You guys don't forgot the first annual "Points Playoff" starts September 1st.
-
the difference between 2003 and 2004 in the walks department basically contributed almost 300 points to his total
-
.609 OBP that year. In-freaking-sane.
-
Still hard to believe he was walked 232 times in 2004. Don't think that record will ever be broken...
-
Bonds' numbers are staggering...to state the obvious
-
Are we playing fantasy cycling now?
-
Lucky Strikes's trading block has been updated!
-
Yes, this happens once every couple weeks. Usually goes away in an hour or two.
-
Is anyone else being told to cut players because there is a glitch with the 60 day rosters?
-
I think it is a very good deal for both teams although I am surprised that the Dodgers offered to pay so much salary...not that they can't handle it
-
Also, I assume everybody knows sportsonearth.com launches today. I'm a big fan of Posnanski.
-
Could be exciting for Knights, too, if he rides the Flying Gonzos to the title this season!
-
Pretty exciting for Dodgers fans, I'd expect. I wouldn't bet against 15+ HR from AG through the end of the season.
-
I wish Crawford the best - rough time to come to Boston dealing with injuries - and it was an idiotic contract from the second it was offered. I don't really want to talk about Josh Beckett.
-
- whose power has just not been the same with the Sox.
-
but when the obligations are starting to hamstring the roster, as they were for the Sox, I'm fine with the dump. I basically see it like a basketball deal, where RDLR/Webster/Salary Relief is a pretty good return for AG
-
Circling back a bit to Friday (gee, threaded discussions would be nice) - as a Red Sox fan, it's hard to see AG go. But the team has been an unmitigated disaster this year. I tend to be in the "it's not my money, and there is no salary cap" camp,
-
Heyy, Casey Kelly debut tomorrow.... and I'll actually get to start him! Love the "new" lineup system.
-
I just think it should work the same as a regular one.
-
Well, I'm just saying all trades should be equal. I think we all agree the wait should be 24 hours, but it's not, and it isn't particularly fair that someone can bypass the waiting period by creating an illegal roster. I'm not upset about the trade at all
-
Ryan Zimmerman available.....could easily be a top-5 3B next year.
Eckfords ⚾ on
August 26, 2012 9:23 PM
-
I did this exact same thing a while back with Chris Carpenter -- force-trading him to get my roster legal -- and I can't recall anybody being up in arms about it. We're circumventing a rule but it's a dumbass rule.
Eckfords ⚾ on
August 26, 2012 9:05 PM
-
Don't we all think the 48 hour waiting period is kind of pointless? I mean if we want to enforce that I guess, but since I think trades should just go through not sure we want to add another 48 hour period
-
Makes sense - if you want a "force" trade (designed to get you back into legal status), you could post your intention to the board and wait 48 hours before pushed through
-
good point
-
good point
-
What about enforcing the 48-hour wait period between the announcement & making the commish move? I mean, if you were able to make a trade, your roster would still be illegal until the players actually swapped, not simply when it is agreed to.
-
i agree that it circumnavigates the rules, but trading players should be one method in getting your rosters legal...so until Niv allows that function and doesnt "lock" an illegal roster, then i have no problem with it.
-
and if Niv gave us ways to fix the system, we wouldn't have had to create ways to bypass it.
Caimans 🐊 on
August 26, 2012 5:43 PM
-
in this case there was even notification that the players were available.
Caimans 🐊 on
August 26, 2012 5:42 PM
-
I disagree - there is a very valid reason for doing it, and Enrico already alluded to it - there is no guarantee you are going to recoup that money in a cut. MLB teams do this all the time when they DFA a player and try to work a trade before releasing.
Caimans 🐊 on
August 26, 2012 5:42 PM
-
Despite what we've allowed (me) when lineups are illegal, I think Durham makes a very strong case and further discussion is probably needed. We may need to reserve this type of trading for the off season only, post cut date. It does seem to bypass the sys
-
yea that's been previously discussed, I have no problem with it
Caimans 🐊 on
August 26, 2012 5:26 PM
-
I think player for nothing deals are fine and have been done before, but the issue is timing, because Enrico has an illegal roster, he can have it forced through without 2 day wait or waiver process
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages