Fantasy Baseball League II

[Dipre]

He offered me Valverde and Reynolds for Chipper. Since I would cut Conor' date=' I threw him in the deal.[/quote']

 

Oh. My. God.

[Gom]

I didn't realize that Chipper injured his back. Honestly, I had no idea. I've cancelled the deal from my end. It's not a fair deal, and I'm not trying to pass off damaged goods here.

[italstallianion]

I think the deal was a rip off even if Chipper was healthy. I think that all 12 other owners would have vetoed that deal.

[Gom]

Irrespective what others may have done, I dealt a player that was more injured than initially thought. So I killed the deal, and I'm still negotiating with Suns.

 

You have to admit...I did the right thing.

[italstallianion]

Irrespective what others may have done, I dealt a player that was more injured than initially thought. So I killed the deal, and I'm still negotiating with Suns.

 

You have to admit...I did the right thing.

 

 

 

I agree, you did the right thing. Granted, the right thing would have been forced anyway, and at least you were not the one who made the offer.

[Gom]

Seeing as how Team Fawal emailed me and told me he wanted to change his vote from 5 veto's to 6, I will change the league veto to 6. However, to appease the crowd who wanted 5 votes, I will extend the days from two days to three days. This seems to be a compromise that everyone can live with. One more day for one more vote.

 

I will still maintain the role of league manager veto override, as I have already used it once this season [on my own deal, no less].

 

Another point. I can see who votes for, and against deals. There are two league members who have voted "no" on every deal. This is not the purpose of the veto. This is also part of the reason of the increase.

 

When you veto a deal, it should be because of competitive imbalance. However, before you veto a deal, please look at the teams involved. In every deal, there is a winner and a loser. However, we're looking for imbalance, not fairness. Case in point: I traded Ubaldo Jimenez for Abreu. Looking at the players so far, I came out on the short end of the stick. However, I needed an OF, and I had excess pitching at the time. So use your veto votes fairly.

 

Personally, I think Dipre's second deal with Suns should have gone through. It was a very fair deal, and due to those two veto's, the deal died, when honestly, it should have gone through. It actually had more allow trade votes than veto votes. I miscalculated and believed that people would analyze deals and not just vote "no" irrespectively.

 

I have no issue changing what I can change. After all, it's not MY league, it's OUR league. It's also been a ton of fun so far.

[italstallianion]

Seeing as how Team Fawal emailed me and told me he wanted to change his vote from 5 veto's to 6' date=' I will change the league veto to 6. However, to appease the crowd who wanted 5 votes, [b']I will extend the days from two days to three days.[/b] This seems to be a compromise that everyone can live with. One more day for one more vote.

 

I will still maintain the role of league manager veto override, as I have already used it once this season [on my own deal, no less].

 

Another point. I can see who votes for, and against deals. There are two league members who have voted "no" on every deal. This is not the purpose of the veto. This is also part of the reason of the increase.

 

When you veto a deal, it should be because of competitive imbalance. However, before you veto a deal, please look at the teams involved. In every deal, there is a winner and a loser. However, we're looking for imbalance, not fairness. Case in point: I traded Ubaldo Jimenez for Abreu. Looking at the players so far, I came out on the short end of the stick. However, I needed an OF, and I had excess pitching at the time. So use your veto votes fairly.

 

Personally, I think Dipre's second deal with Suns should have gone through. It was a very fair deal, and due to those two veto's, the deal died, when honestly, it should have gone through. It actually had more allow trade votes than veto votes. I miscalculated and believed that people would analyze deals and not just vote "no" irrespectively.

 

I have no issue changing what I can change. After all, it's not MY league, it's OUR league. It's also been a ton of fun so far.

 

 

Will this make the trade process longer? I don't see how it's correlated with vetoes, so before we do any of that I think that we'd have to make a separate vote. It's also going to get harder to plan if it takes longer for trades to process. I just don't get how making the trade period last another day will help those who wanted a 5 vote veto.

[Gom]

Will this make the trade process longer? I don't see how it's correlated with vetoes' date=' so before we do any of that I think that we'd have to make a separate vote. It's also going to get harder to plan if it takes longer for trades to process. I just don't get how making the trade period last another day will help those who wanted a 5 vote veto.[/quote']

 

I was thinking of giving one more day to allow everyone to vote. I don't really care. Two days is fine with me. Chime in here and let me know if you'd rather have two days or three days. It is of no importance to me.

[italstallianion]

I'm fine with the 2 days. I think it would be easier to mentally map out trades and would provide less of a window for something to happen in between the trade. Either way, I just figured people should vote or speak up on that before it came into practice, regardless of what happens with the 6 vetoes.

[diony]

Chipper gets traded again.

[Gom]

Chipper will be traded. It is manifest destiny.

[suns]

An exciting first week has come and gone. Fawal seems to have left off where he finished last year, demolishing the Anti-Horse Faced Douche Squad. The new comer Guardians Love Indians also put a hurting on the Dead Skunks...who, lets face it..just played dead. With a flurry of activity so far, it looks to be an exciting season.

 

Look at the part I bolded...my name is Guardians rule Guardians.

[Gom]

Fixed, suns.

[italstallianion]

I'm willing to trade SP for a good bat. Anyone of Greinke, Jimenez, Jurrjens, Danks, and Feldman are available in a good deal.

[italstallianion]

On another note, Gom, what happened to the maximum number of starts allowed. In the first week, it was 14, now it's only 12.

[diony]

I'm willing to trade SP for a good bat. Anyone of Greinke' date=' Jimenez, Jurrjens, Danks, and Feldman are available in a good deal.[/quote']

 

I'm shopping Votto and Tulo.

[rhet]

I'm shopping Votto and Tulo.

 

I'd give you Jeter and Hughes for both of them.

But only because I hate Yankees.

[diony]

^ I'll pass.

[italstallianion]

I'd give you Jeter and Hughes for both of them.

But only because I hate Yankees.

 

 

 

Ha, that might be worse than Gom's original offer to Diony.

[italstallianion]

Now that I think about it, now that Gom unloaded Sandoval and Chipper on Indiana, what will Gom complain about and who will he try to deal now?

[diony]

Aramis.

[Gom]

Arod on the block. Looking for SP/C/SS/RP. Best offer gets him.

[italstallianion]

Do you seriously do trades because you're bored?

[Gom]

Now that I think about it' date=' now that Gom unloaded Sandoval and Chipper on Indiana, what will Gom complain about and who will he try to deal now?[/quote']

 

What did I ever complain about in the league?

[italstallianion]

I don't think you complained about anything in OUR league, but in the other league you complained that it was too inactive and boring.

[Gom]

Do you seriously do trades because you're bored?

 

Yes

[suns]

Mark Reynolds is on the trading block.

[Gom]

I'll take him. What do you want? Don't say Arod, I'll kill you.

[diony]

The league needs to be even more active, someone trade me something.

[italstallianion]

Our league is active enough. Way more active than the other league. Why don't you trade with Gom since you both trade when you're bored rather than out of necessity.