-
I'm fine with modifying the veto rule so that a majority of teams not involved in the trade (6 teams) is required. But, let's not go crazy with rewriting the existing rules here. Six team veto should be sufficient to regulate the blatantly lopsided trades.
Bulldoggos 2 on
March 9, 2020 10:45 AM
-
I realize that this is a long term league and therefore not every team is going to compete every season, but if a single game hasn't even been played yet, how do you know if your team is competitive or not? Therefore, another potential change I would propose is not allowing trades until after the first month of the season.
-
I vetoed the trades, not because of whether or not I think they're fair in terms of the players involved, but I think they're unfair to the competitive balance of the league. 2 teams have seemingly given up on this season before even a single game has been played and now because the power has been condensed to fewer teams, it's much more likely that other teams will make similar moves.
-
I’m not going to debate semantics ;)
-
I said argue not justify. I was empathetic to your frustration and want to make it less so for everyone moving forward. Trying to de escalate.
-
Please stop saying you can easily justify the trade - that’s just rubbing it in our faces. The “justification” is McNeil Biggio etc have best case scenario years and the studs you receive suck. It’s not like Harper Bryant and Paddack are in their 30s.
-
I agree with the thought of veto should only be used to prevent cheating but then get all worked up by trades I deem as “dumb”. Because I can easily argue this trade to be okay but if I wasn’t involved would be all in a tizzy. Funny part is warlords is quite in the corner laughing because he knows he’s gonna kick our teeth in either way.
-
I'll also note that it seems Argyle Beavers proposal is for SIX votes to veto, not five. According to the Ottoneu rulebook, the current rule says "majority (50% + 1 vote)", which is seven votes.
-
I'll be the dissenting voice and say that I interpret the veto power simply as a way to prevent collusion, and therefore the threshold should remain high. Disagreeing with the value/fairness/lopsidedness of a trade shouldn't be a reason to veto, in my opinion. However, I do understand that the right to veto is not explicitly defined, so others may disagree with my interpretation.
-
I would also be in favor of five. I think Beavers is correct that the system shouldn’t take the teams involved in the trade into account.
-
I like what beavers is proposing as a potential solution. I think if 5 people feel it is too lopsided that is enough to warrant a trade to be vetoed
-
I also absolutely agree that the rules should not be changed mid-trade. In general, I am against vetoing as I think everyone should be allowed to manage their team as they see fit.
-
I agree Killteam, it would be wrong to change the rules mid-trade or go back and change trades that have happened. This trade should abide by the current rules. But I propose we vote to change the veto threshold to more than half of the owners not involved in the trade rather than simply more than half of all owners.
-
I get that. I am not saying you are wrong to be and while imo it isn’t the worst deal I have seen I just don’t know how we police this stuff better as a league.
-
Alright. Clearly, I’m a little pissed off about this trade and I know you know it’s bad. We’ll just see how the vote ends up.
-
Also that’s my point every team has had questionable stuff so we can address it but changing rules mid trade is not how to address it. The league can veto it and we can look to change the process if that’s what we all want to do.
-
I resent something he had sent to me. And yeah I get all sorts of deals I find to be terrible from you too. We all have different evaluations so that is the problem.
-
In the last couple months, Mamba Mentality traded Bellinger for Berrios, gave me way too much for Harper, and now this. Maybe he should take some time off from making any trades.
-
You proposed the trade. I’ve received countless garbage offers from you.
-
Problem is it isn’t objective. It is absolutely opinion. I am not disagreeing but I should not take offers that I like because people don’t like them when so many terrible trades imo have went through?
-
This trade is objectively horrible. You vetoed the Correa trade. There is no way you can justify this one and it should not go through.
-
I don’t know how we police it better because it is so subjective
-
We can argue one way or another on which is the all time worst trade but at least the owner gave everyone an opportunity to know those players would be moved.
-
I get the frustration of the trade for sure. However we as a league have let a lot of very questionable trades go through. Apparently 7 vetoes must be needed I’m not positive. I also thought it was 6.
-
I’m still confused as to why the other trade with 6 vetoes went through? If more than half of the owners not involved in a trade veto it, it should be vetoed.
-
If this trade doesn’t get vetoed, then there is literally no point of having a veto system.
-
All of my SPs are available except Reynaldo, Wheeler, Luzardo and Urias
-
Six vetoes lol
-
Starting pitching is available in exchange for an offensive upgrade.
-
Draft starts at 8:30 sharp please sign on
-
Move to Iowa, they will be recounting there for years
-
I demand a recount !!!! Too many hanging chads for me to be ok with this happening
-
It's definitely some sort of bug. Similar thing happened in one of my other leagues.
Argyle Beavers on
February 10, 2020 8:17 AM
-
Yeah I have no idea how that happened. I didn't login at all last night.
Argyle Beavers on
February 10, 2020 8:15 AM
-
Because most players that were cut were overpriced. It’s whatever. My flight got canceled today and I am stuck in Vegas tonight so don’t mind me lol
-
Not sure he had anything to do with it because why wouldn’t he have picked up sale, Stanton ect. Either way no one will be added until after the auction.
-
Okay, good. Argyle, what is your explanation? That is shady.
-
Yeah not sure but we will drop them
-
Can someone explain what this waiver claim business is? I was not aware any claims could be made at this time.
-
Looking for owners in new league Atomic fantasy
Infinite Jest on
February 4, 2020 3:00 PM
-
Gotcha, Mookie. I was merely counting the owners who had commented publicly on here. I’ll request the 23rd off from work.
-
at this point, the 23rd works for me. only way that it wouldn't work is if my wife goes into labor a week early which would obviously be very short notice. lets just plan it for then and i can have a friend draft if i'm unavailable
-
Hey sorry... 23rd works for me. I have another one goin off on the 23rd, but not much to do here.
-
As of now we have 8 ppl for yes on the 23rd. Trust has $8 so he may not ever draft. We are just waiting on 3 more and we will move to a later date in March if we need to.
-
Not even half of the league has weighed in, so let's not lock anything in quite yet. From my experience giving people 3ish options and a set time to respond (a week? 48 hours?) works the best in figuring out what works best for everyone.
-
My plan is to draft Stanton for $18 and then a bunch of $1 relievers, so if you could make that happen that'd be great.
-
If you supply us with a list of your draft targets, we can nominate them all before your second draft starts at 9pm... we totally won't bid you up!
-
One hand for each device, let's do it!
-
lets lock in the 23rd at 8:30. We can start a bit early if everyone is logged in.
-
He is a seasoned veteran. Sure he can handle it with 2 devices
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages