-
Is it a coincidence that this sketchy trade went down the same week as the DNC?? I think not
PEPE SILVIA on
July 27, 2016 8:22 AM
-
The rest of my team is pretty much available to trades.
-
Veto veto veto
-
In all honesty I probably shouldn't have traded Cueto, unless I got Almedys or Lamb. He should have been kept for the next season. It was a legitimate trade though. I fucking hate my brother for whining to get that $45.
-
You guys have blown up my inbox
-
Tiuche. Carry on.
-
Only if I'm trying to make Jake feel worse about it.
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 6:44 PM
-
Does it matter that you don't feel like he got the best prospects in a trade?
-
Ok at this point, let's just leave it be and let the league decide. If it goes through then it goes through, if it gets vetoed then it gets vetoed.
-
Even though he didn't even get the best prospects.
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 6:28 PM
-
5. I awaken this morning to the comments of anarchy and other trade offers and inquire whats going on. Jake assures me he is more invested because of the trade.
https://imageshack.com/my/images
-
I think the line "You want my best players, I want your best prospects" provides evidence for the first option.
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 6:27 PM
-
I don't disagree "I'm not in charge" ---but you're assuming it be done out of stupidity. Like I said, if it was stupidity then it's shitty but not against the rules.
-
It was collusion, which really shouldn't be tolerated, especially in a league in which we pay money to play it.
-
Certainly I wouldn't say no either, but I can't imagine that trade happening with both sides truly thinking it's a good trade for them. I don't think any of us (outside maybe the two of you) believe it to be a good trade for both sides; I don't think that's in question. So the argument then that you're making seems to be that he doesn't know what he's doing and you took advantage of him. The only alternative is collusion. If it's the first, then fine, it's shitty but acceptable. If not, then...
-
I'm not sure that's entirely relevant. If he got a deal he liked he would just make that deal. He may have stupidly not let others know that those players were available, but I don't think that constitutes collusion.
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 6:22 PM
-
4. The deal largely set we negotiate for cap space. He threatens to take his deal and got after Bregman. Who's owner wouldn't have accepted because of some clear moral high ground. We settle in the middle of his $40 and my $50 at $45 and the deal is agreed upon by both parties he offers, I accept.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img924/772/wREyoV.png
-
Ok, it seems he was at least trying to get what he considered to be a better offer. My question now is, was he willing to trade those players to anyone else? Or was it you or nobody? I'd still call that collusion to an extent. I could make a deal work with anyone if I was the only person they would trade with. If you weren't willing to give up those prospects would he have gone to someone else? Did you go to him intending to get those players or did he go to you to get rid of them?
-
3. the negotiations continued. He offers verbally then virtually Shoemaker to be added for Frazier. I for got i was supposed to say no because it might hurt your guys feelings.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/1115/KsQVFN.png
http://imageshack.com/a/img923/677/Ag00UA.png
-
The negotiation begins. He asks for Gurriell whom we all clearly valued because we all just bid on him to $16.
http://imageshack.com/a/img923/9181/lzb2Y6.png
-
My initial offer, notice the two affordable quality major league players.
http://imageshack.com/a/img921/228/w55fxo.png
-
Then produce what you're saying...it wouldn't totally make me believe there wasn't something going on, but it'd at least make your argument more reasonable. I don't see how someone with no motives that claims to know baseball would trade those guys for a guy who's never played on America, a guy who just got promoted to AAA with a loaded outfield ahead of him, and two single A 19 year olds. Did he try to get a better offer from someone else? Was he willing to trade those players to someone else?
-
You could see the multiple trade offers and say there was signs he attempted to get the best deal. You could see the text were he asked for more prospects and less major league players and a view at his player evaluation. A refusal to produce these things might be a sign I'm hiding something but that is not the case so calling circumstantial evidence all thats necessary would insufficient.
-
The trade veto button isn't tool to be used against your opponent. Its not for maintaining fairness, its a protection against collusion. and if you're going to call it collusion pointing to one sentence likely to be taken out of context and calling it sufficient evidence is pretty stupid.
-
Circumstantial evidence does not equate to bad evidence. Demanding direct evidence seems pretty stupid. Are you going to produce the communication between you and the other party? Did someone see the two of you colluding? Circumstantial evidence is entirely reasonable in this situation
PEPE SILVIA on
July 26, 2016 5:16 PM
-
I believe Jake's reference in question "I am anarchy" is a near reference to our own commissioner @Betanceswithwolves commonly used phrase "I just like to watch the world burn".
-
Also Joc Rash beat me to the other logical fallacy.
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 5:01 PM
-
Those are straw man arguments. I'll reiterate my position if you would like to address it. I don't believe trades should be vetoed unless there is collusion. Collusion can be purposely trying to make one team better, or conspiring to purposely disrupt a league. Those are the only grounds on which I would be for vetoing a trade. We don't know if there has been collusion but Jake's previous statement would be enough to warrant some investigation.
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 5:01 PM
-
Ad hominems are usually a sign of rational actors.
-
Have you set you lineup yet Joc Rash? Or did you just log in to trade someone something dumb?
-
Also it's kind of a silly line of reasoning to suggest trades are not subject to the court of public opinion when there is a league veto mechanism in every fantasy league I've been a part of. The whole concept of the league veto is to ensure a trade is fair for everybody...otherwise what's the point?
-
*Oakland Ocelots just Tom Brady-ed his cell phone*
-
Does the commissioner have subpoena authority to procure such evidence?
-
If you would like to insinuate that I am colluding please provide some evidence. Such wild claims are petty, when unfounded and loosely used. A trade is between two people and it is not up to the court of public opinion to decide whether it is fair for the rest of them. This is a competition and your feelings about another trade are irrelevant.
-
The other two prospects in question are likely farther away but have consistently ranked in the top 10 and 20-30 respectively on the major prospecting ranking over the last two seasons.
-
tearing*
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 4:43 PM
-
It is odd that super fudge didn't acquire any prospects that fall into the category that you value. But he is under no obligation to target any player of anyone else's value but his own. Furthermore Jake acquired atleast two pieces that are likely to help him this year or next. Gurriell is predicted to make the major league roster this august which is why you bid $15 dollars on him. And Frazier is in AAA now after taring up AA and is currently blocked by Lonnie Chisenhall and Jose Ramirez.
-
Yeah, no one's stopping the Diamondbacks from making terrible trades IRL. Wait, is Super Fudge Dave Stewart?
Strike Force on
July 26, 2016 4:22 PM
-
If there was collusion however, that is unacceptable and the trade should be vetoed. Whether that collusion was in an effort to make one team purposely better or in an effort to mess with someone. To borrow a phrase "watch the world burn"
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 4:16 PM
-
Oakland (Josh) has quite a few surplus value assets that are helpful now and next year. I know, I've been trying to acquire them. The players Super Fudge (Jake) acquired do not fall into that category. When it comes to trade vetoes my stance is to only veto if there is collusion. I believe in a persons right to be an idiot and make awful trades. I have never been swayed by competitive balance arguments, if the trade was made in good faith...
Reloading on
July 26, 2016 4:13 PM
-
I don't want to be involved in some hippie left coast pissing contest. However, the 4 players received in the trade at issue are total garbage.
PEPE SILVIA on
July 26, 2016 4:07 PM
-
Hi guys, just wanted to stop by and say hello. Just wanted to let you all know, that I'm still playing. So don't kick me out or anything, KAY! Thanks. Bye.
-
Even taking into account the fact that you're not competitive this year. Do I probably care more than others because I feel like he might be the only one who might actually beat me this year? For sure, but it's a shady as hell trade regardless, and I'm clearly not averse to trades since I'm sure I've been in involved in the most I'm out of anyone. They need to make sense for both parties though.
-
I think it's pretty clear (to me) that there's some level of collusion going on. I vetoed the trade, although I'm sure it'll end up going through anyway since not enough people actually pay attention to others trades. I just don't see how trading a well priced Cy young candidate, a well priced MVP candidate, and a super cheap solid starter for four unproven guys, most of which won't even be playing this year or probably next, makes any sense for you.
-
That must have been uplifting, getting that high for the first time. Unfortunately, unless you're in the top 3, you're not competing. Just a stepping stone.
-
I got fourth last season so that doesn't make a lot of sense, but I am not gonna waste my time trying to explain that to you.
-
And I'm sure I can have fun not being currently competitive. You've been doing that habitually in every league I've ever seen you in.
-
Aggressive Jacob. Are you upset? do you need a hug?
-
Well I think you should shut the fuck up.
-
I didn't know the two leagues correlated, but having said that you can have fun not being competitive for at least another two years. I think you could have found a better deal and you are simply letting Josh be your Gepetto. On the other hand, I shouldn't be surprised, you have never been one to be able to think for yourself.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages