CT Fantasy Baseball - Interested?

[Quincy Varnish]

But the trade made y’all uncomfortable thinking it might make me tougher to beat, so the veto is really going against the spirit of competition.

So everyone that voted against the trade was only doing it to keep you down? Are you sure that’s it?

I’ve been in this situation before. To get a trade through after it was vetoed - my response was to make a sound defense of the trade, and simply offer the trade again. That works.

Sure, it definitely was a ‘smart’ trade for you. Doesn’t seem too smart to be attacking the five people that voted against it, or creating strawman arguments against positions unknown.

I’m not attacking. I’m frustrated because we agreed to a trade that we thought benefited both teams and the league didn’t let it go through.

Between you and I, I’m frustrated because you’ve been knocking me for not making any trades, but then when I DO make a trade, you knock the trade and don’t let it go through.

So it’s like “you need to make some trades, but not THAT trade”.

Need I remind you that we just made a trade ourselves?

I also did not really knock the trade here. Some snide remarks were made, and I did not speak out about it here until after the trade was vetoed. You cannot hold me solely responsible for the trade being vetoed when 5 people voted against the trade.

Also - I did ask you to break it down, in a simple value assessment.

Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

Can’t speak for Matt, but I actually would like to hear how you break down the exchange of value in this trade. Humor me.

Zack Wheeler
Paul Sewald

for

Garret Crochet
Mitchell Parker
Josh Smith

Try it this way, if you are willing. Both sides would add up to 100, with each player having a respective value ‘score’. How does it balance out?

You did not directly respond to this. Perhaps you missed the message, but it could have been an accessible way to defend the trade without digging into bleep blarp. Not everyone has time for bleep blarp.

[Dazepster]

Have remained silent on the latest Trade Brouhaha.

Not a money or Trophy League yet one csn see how contentious it can become.

We need a regroup at the end of the season to discuss proposed changes ahead of Season 2. We do need some practical changes.

On the Trade front. Have always operated with a Trade Panel which consisted of The Commish and a fellow owner or 2 with voting rights. No, no system is perfect but the seemingly blind veto could be improved upon.

P.S. Waiver pick ups. I placed at least 3 claims on M.Garcia. Maybe 4. Changed the drop player each time and increased my bid amount. Thought i might be laughed at bidding 6 or 8 bucks. Whatashame blew me right out of the water!!! What A Shame it was indeed. Lol

[An Old Friend]

But the trade made y’all uncomfortable thinking it might make me tougher to beat, so the veto is really going against the spirit of competition.

So everyone that voted against the trade was only doing it to keep you down? Are you sure that’s it?

I’ve been in this situation before. To get a trade through after it was vetoed - my response was to make a sound defense of the trade, and simply offer the trade again. That works.

Sure, it definitely was a ‘smart’ trade for you. Doesn’t seem too smart to be attacking the five people that voted against it, or creating strawman arguments against positions unknown.

I’m not attacking. I’m frustrated because we agreed to a trade that we thought benefited both teams and the league didn’t let it go through.

Between you and I, I’m frustrated because you’ve been knocking me for not making any trades, but then when I DO make a trade, you knock the trade and don’t let it go through.

So it’s like “you need to make some trades, but not THAT trade”.

Need I remind you that we just made a trade ourselves?

I also did not really knock the trade here. Some snide remarks were made, and I did not speak out about it here until after the trade was vetoed. You cannot hold me solely responsible for the trade being vetoed when 5 people voted against the trade.

Also - I did ask you to break it down, in a simple value assessment.

Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

Can’t speak for Matt, but I actually would like to hear how you break down the exchange of value in this trade. Humor me.

Zack Wheeler
Paul Sewald

for

Garret Crochet
Mitchell Parker
Josh Smith

Try it this way, if you are willing. Both sides would add up to 100, with each player having a respective value ‘score’. How does it balance out?

You did not directly respond to this. Perhaps you missed the message, but it could have been an accessible way to defend the trade without digging into bleep blarp. Not everyone has time for bleep blarp.

I thought about responding but haven’t ever really seen a question posed that way. If I had to assign values personally, it would be:
50 - Wheeler
35 - Crochet
8 - Parker
5 - Sewald
2 - Smith

Something like that

[Quincy Varnish]

Have remained silent on the latest Trade Brouhaha.

Not a money or Trophy League yet one csn see how contentious it can become.

We need a regroup at the end of the season to discuss proposed changes ahead of Season 2. We do need some practical changes.

On the Trade front. Have always operated with a Trade Panel which consisted of The Commish and a fellow owner or 2 with voting rights. No, no system is perfect but the seemingly blind veto could be improved upon.

P.S. Waiver pick ups. I placed at least 3 claims on M.Garcia. Maybe 4. Changed the drop player each time and increased my bid amount. Thought i might be laughed at bidding 6 or 8 bucks. Whatashame blew me right out of the water!!! What A Shame it was indeed. Lol

There are several changes to discuss… one simple, small one could be having at least 2 roster spot dedicated for RP only. Primary reason - it makes it more difficult to cull through relief pitchers when Yahoo’s system doesn’t allow searches for RPs without a roster designation specifically for RPs.

That’s a problem I didn’t foresee when forming the league. The solution would be 2 roster spots for RP and (maybe) 4 general ‘P’ spots. We’d have an extra spot on our active rosters, but I’d still like to keep total players capped to 26.

[Quincy Varnish]

But the trade made y’all uncomfortable thinking it might make me tougher to beat, so the veto is really going against the spirit of competition.

So everyone that voted against the trade was only doing it to keep you down? Are you sure that’s it?

I’ve been in this situation before. To get a trade through after it was vetoed - my response was to make a sound defense of the trade, and simply offer the trade again. That works.

Sure, it definitely was a ‘smart’ trade for you. Doesn’t seem too smart to be attacking the five people that voted against it, or creating strawman arguments against positions unknown.

I’m not attacking. I’m frustrated because we agreed to a trade that we thought benefited both teams and the league didn’t let it go through.

Between you and I, I’m frustrated because you’ve been knocking me for not making any trades, but then when I DO make a trade, you knock the trade and don’t let it go through.

So it’s like “you need to make some trades, but not THAT trade”.

Need I remind you that we just made a trade ourselves?

I also did not really knock the trade here. Some snide remarks were made, and I did not speak out about it here until after the trade was vetoed. You cannot hold me solely responsible for the trade being vetoed when 5 people voted against the trade.

Also - I did ask you to break it down, in a simple value assessment.

Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

Can’t speak for Matt, but I actually would like to hear how you break down the exchange of value in this trade. Humor me.

Zack Wheeler
Paul Sewald

for

Garret Crochet
Mitchell Parker
Josh Smith

Try it this way, if you are willing. Both sides would add up to 100, with each player having a respective value ‘score’. How does it balance out?

You did not directly respond to this. Perhaps you missed the message, but it could have been an accessible way to defend the trade without digging into bleep blarp. Not everyone has time for bleep blarp.

I thought about responding but haven’t ever really seen a question posed that way. If I had to assign values personally, it would be:
50 - Wheeler
35 - Crochet
8 - Parker
5 - Sewald
2 - Smith

Something like that

That wasn’t quite what I had in mind, but… with the values you’ve given here, you’d be getting back 55 and giving 45.

[An Old Friend]

But the trade made y’all uncomfortable thinking it might make me tougher to beat, so the veto is really going against the spirit of competition.

So everyone that voted against the trade was only doing it to keep you down? Are you sure that’s it?

I’ve been in this situation before. To get a trade through after it was vetoed - my response was to make a sound defense of the trade, and simply offer the trade again. That works.

Sure, it definitely was a ‘smart’ trade for you. Doesn’t seem too smart to be attacking the five people that voted against it, or creating strawman arguments against positions unknown.

I’m not attacking. I’m frustrated because we agreed to a trade that we thought benefited both teams and the league didn’t let it go through.

Between you and I, I’m frustrated because you’ve been knocking me for not making any trades, but then when I DO make a trade, you knock the trade and don’t let it go through.

So it’s like “you need to make some trades, but not THAT trade”.

Need I remind you that we just made a trade ourselves?

I also did not really knock the trade here. Some snide remarks were made, and I did not speak out about it here until after the trade was vetoed. You cannot hold me solely responsible for the trade being vetoed when 5 people voted against the trade.

Also - I did ask you to break it down, in a simple value assessment.

Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

Can’t speak for Matt, but I actually would like to hear how you break down the exchange of value in this trade. Humor me.

Zack Wheeler
Paul Sewald

for

Garret Crochet
Mitchell Parker
Josh Smith

Try it this way, if you are willing. Both sides would add up to 100, with each player having a respective value ‘score’. How does it balance out?

You did not directly respond to this. Perhaps you missed the message, but it could have been an accessible way to defend the trade without digging into bleep blarp. Not everyone has time for bleep blarp.

I thought about responding but haven’t ever really seen a question posed that way. If I had to assign values personally, it would be:
50 - Wheeler
35 - Crochet
8 - Parker
5 - Sewald
2 - Smith

Something like that

That wasn’t quite what I had in mind, but… with the values you’ve given here, you’d be getting back 55 and giving 45.

Any trade I make is one where I’ve assessed that I’m getting greater value back than I’m giving… at least in some sense.

But yeah, I wasn’t clear on the exercise you were asking me to take part in

[Dazepster]

Have remained silent on the latest Trade Brouhaha.

Not a money or Trophy League yet one csn see how contentious it can become.

We need a regroup at the end of the season to discuss proposed changes ahead of Season 2. We do need some practical changes.

On the Trade front. Have always operated with a Trade Panel which consisted of The Commish and a fellow owner or 2 with voting rights. No, no system is perfect but the seemingly blind veto could be improved upon.

P.S. Waiver pick ups. I placed at least 3 claims on M.Garcia. Maybe 4. Changed the drop player each time and increased my bid amount. Thought i might be laughed at bidding 6 or 8 bucks. Whatashame blew me right out of the water!!! What A Shame it was indeed. Lol

There are several changes to discuss… one simple, small one could be having at least 2 roster spot dedicated for RP only. Primary reason - it makes it more difficult to cull through relief pitchers when Yahoo’s system doesn’t allow searches for RPs without a roster designation specifically for RPs.

That’s a problem I didn’t foresee when forming the league. The solution would be 2 roster spots for RP and (maybe) 4 general ‘P’ spots. We’d have an extra spot on our active rosters, but I’d still like to keep total players capped to 26.

Very familiar with RP requirements from past league participations. I might add though that that usually indicates that there will be a Holds scoring category as well. Open to that idea.

Have also more often than not had the Wins and Saves category netted as in Wins minus Losses and Saves minus Blown Saves. Following that logic, stolen bases were often also netted to Stolen Bases minus Caught Stealing. Simply food for thought.

[mattmitchl44]

But the trade made y’all uncomfortable thinking it might make me tougher to beat, so the veto is really going against the spirit of competition.

So everyone that voted against the trade was only doing it to keep you down? Are you sure that’s it?

I’ve been in this situation before. To get a trade through after it was vetoed - my response was to make a sound defense of the trade, and simply offer the trade again. That works.

Sure, it definitely was a ‘smart’ trade for you. Doesn’t seem too smart to be attacking the five people that voted against it, or creating strawman arguments against positions unknown.

I’m not attacking. I’m frustrated because we agreed to a trade that we thought benefited both teams and the league didn’t let it go through.

Between you and I, I’m frustrated because you’ve been knocking me for not making any trades, but then when I DO make a trade, you knock the trade and don’t let it go through.

So it’s like “you need to make some trades, but not THAT trade”.

Need I remind you that we just made a trade ourselves?

I also did not really knock the trade here. Some snide remarks were made, and I did not speak out about it here until after the trade was vetoed. You cannot hold me solely responsible for the trade being vetoed when 5 people voted against the trade.

Also - I did ask you to break it down, in a simple value assessment.

Can you veto a trade and then withdraw your veto later is an explanation is given?

No... but why do you require an explanation?

Can’t speak for Matt, but I actually would like to hear how you break down the exchange of value in this trade. Humor me.

Zack Wheeler
Paul Sewald

for

Garret Crochet
Mitchell Parker
Josh Smith

Try it this way, if you are willing. Both sides would add up to 100, with each player having a respective value ‘score’. How does it balance out?

You did not directly respond to this. Perhaps you missed the message, but it could have been an accessible way to defend the trade without digging into bleep blarp. Not everyone has time for bleep blarp.

I thought about responding but haven’t ever really seen a question posed that way. If I had to assign values personally, it would be:
50 - Wheeler
35 - Crochet
8 - Parker
5 - Sewald
2 - Smith

Something like that

That's roughly FantasyPro's take - IIRC it was you getting 24 VORP (+ an open roster spot) vs. BL getting 20 VORP. Given your recognized need for saves and how much additional saves will likely help you (getting you into more of the middle part of the league distribution, I could see Sewald moving you up four or five spots in saves - like 11th to 7th/6th), it was probably a bit more in your favor given your specific roster construction.

For my own part, I decided that 24 VORP to 20 VORP wasn't crazy, and that it was perhaps not fair to penalize you for the additional imputed value of the open roster spot flexibility.

[mattmitchl44]

P.S. Waiver pick ups. I placed at least 3 claims on M.Garcia. Maybe 4. Changed the drop player each time and increased my bid amount. Thought i might be laughed at bidding 6 or 8 bucks. Whatashame blew me right out of the water!!! What A Shame it was indeed. Lol

If you were bidding on M. Garcia, I would make T. Estrada available as an alternative if you wanted to trade for him.

I have Estrada offered up in another proposed deal right now.

[Quincy Varnish]

There are several changes to discuss… one simple, small one could be having at least 2 roster spot dedicated for RP only. Primary reason - it makes it more difficult to cull through relief pitchers when Yahoo’s system doesn’t allow searches for RPs without a roster designation specifically for RPs.

That’s a problem I didn’t foresee when forming the league. The solution would be 2 roster spots for RP and (maybe) 4 general ‘P’ spots. We’d have an extra spot on our active rosters, but I’d still like to keep total players capped to 26.

Very familiar with RP requirements from past league participations. I might add though that that usually indicates that there will be a Holds scoring category as well. Open to that idea.

Have also more often than not had the Wins and Saves category netted as in Wins minus Losses and Saves minus Blown Saves. Following that logic, stolen bases were often also netted to Stolen Bases minus Caught Stealing. Simply food for thought.

It wouldn’t indicate there would be holds, and that is not the usual case with Yahoo leagues. It’s just a roster spot with an RP designation, which would allow for RP-specific searches of the player pool. The majority of Yahoo’s leagues are public, with the same standard configuration - SPx2, RPx2, Px4.

We could certainly discuss some category changes, but I like the way this league is working now.

[An Old Friend]

I like the way this league is working now.

I did… but not so sure when a trade that is justified by both owners making the trade isn’t allowed to proceed.

[Quincy Varnish]

I like the way this league is working now.

I did… but not so sure when a trade that is justified by both owners making the trade isn’t allowed to proceed.

Who said it wasn’t “allowed”? Barking Lion did not post until the trade was already vetoed.

Would you prefer the league did not have a veto system?

[An Old Friend]

I like the way this league is working now.

I did… but not so sure when a trade that is justified by both owners making the trade isn’t allowed to proceed.

Who said it wasn’t “allowed”? Barking Lion did not post until the trade was already vetoed.

Would you prefer the league did not have a veto system?

The veto system isn’t in place to disallow trades like the one we agreed to. That’s all. It’s ridiculous that it was blocked.

[mattmitchl44]

In other news - Realmuto now out. He's going to have a meniscectomy (meniscus repair).

Read the forms very closely to make sure there are no typos about the procedure.

[sdaltons]

In other news - Realmuto now out. He's going to have a meniscectomy (meniscus repair).

Read the forms very closely to make sure there are no typos about the procedure.

Dang Matt I was just about to accept your trade offer

[Dazepster]

I like the way this league is working now.

I did… but not so sure when a trade that is justified by both owners making the trade isn’t allowed to proceed.

Who said it wasn’t “allowed”? Barking Lion did not post until the trade was already vetoed.

Would you prefer the league did not have a veto system?

The veto system isn’t in place to disallow trades like the one we agreed to. That’s all. It’s ridiculous that it was blocked.

Didn't vote on blocking the trade myself. Short of suspicion of outright collusion I would be hard pressed to block a trade. Let the buyer beware at the end of the day.

But this seemingly blind veto system opens things up quite a bit. For example. If I perceive that an impending trade may impact a stat category that I am clinging to I could simply veto on that basis nevermind the merits of the trade itself. Granted need 4 others to vote accordingly as well. Too loosey goosey.