|
|
Post by St.Louis Cardinals on Apr 4, 2019 8:07:54 GMT -6
Cubs trade
Escobar/Gio/DJ/Barreto/Staumont
to LAD for
T. Turner/Folty/CarMart
|
|
|
|
CHC/LAD
Apr 4, 2019 22:22:25 GMT -6
Post by New York Yankees on Apr 4, 2019 22:22:25 GMT -6
Everyone,
The above trade currently has 7 votes for a veto in Fantrax (due to the deal being in heavy favor of the return for Cubs).
Objected by: Houston Astros, Minnesota Twins, Atlanta Braves, Toronto Blue Jays, Cleveland Indians, Washington Nationals, San Diego Padres
Because we have received this many votes, I will cancel the trade and allow both LAD/CHC the opportunity to rework the deal if they would like to do so.
|
|
|
|
CHC/LAD
Apr 4, 2019 23:37:14 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Red Sox on Apr 4, 2019 23:37:14 GMT -6
I respect the veto process and I note in particular Houston’s respectful comments in his post re everyone being entitled to their opinion, so I’m not at all trying to be provocative, But I didn’t think it was that bad to be honest.
Certainly not one sided enough to be able to beat me. (Ok That comment was a little provocative, but in a good way)
Go Goldschmidt!
😉
|
|
|
|
Post by St.Louis Cardinals on Apr 5, 2019 0:32:26 GMT -6
I respect the veto process and I note in particular Houston’s respectful comments in his post re everyone being entitled to their opinion, so I’m not at all trying to be provocative, But I didn’t think it was that bad to be honest. Certainly not one sided enough to be able to beat me. (Ok That comment was a little provocative, but in a good way) Go Goldschmidt! 😉 Personally I could care less about not being provocative. I think the veto was garbage. To me, the veto is ultimately meant for preventing collusion. Not deciding the market value of players for the entire league. Owners value players differently and are wrong all the time. Ex: How many teams didn't even consider Altuve? Further more, I do not know what comments from Houston that you are regarding. If there was secret discussions regarding league events, specifically with the intention of collectively trying to organize a veto, then I take that very seriously. In my mind, that in itself is collusion. Collectively discussing players market value, and the outcome of a trade in secrecy. I have a serious problem with that. I am more concerned over that than the trade having been vetoed. My opinion is obviously going to differ greatly from many people here but these are just things that concern me... |
|
|
|
Post by Washington Nationals on Apr 5, 2019 0:44:30 GMT -6
I respect the veto process and I note in particular Houston’s respectful comments in his post re everyone being entitled to their opinion, so I’m not at all trying to be provocative, But I didn’t think it was that bad to be honest. Certainly not one sided enough to be able to beat me. (Ok That comment was a little provocative, but in a good way) Go Goldschmidt! 😉 Personally I could care less about not being provocative. I think the veto was garbage. To me, the veto is ultimately meant for preventing collusion. Not deciding the market value of players for the entire league. Owners value players differently and are wrong all the time. Ex: How many teams didn't even consider Altuve? Further more, I do not know what comments from Houston that you are regarding. If there was secret discussions regarding league events, specifically with the intention of collectively trying to organize a veto, then I take that very seriously. In my mind, that in itself is collusion. Collectively discussing players market value, and the outcome of a trade in secrecy. I have a serious problem with that. I am more concerned over that than the trade having been vetoed. My opinion is obviously going to differ greatly from many people here but these are just things that concern me... I can assure you my veto involved no communication whatsoever with Houston or collusion. Not sure about the others who vetoed, but I doubt they were “secretly discussing” organizing a veto for this trade. I was not apart of anything like that and I have been in this league long enough to know that such a thing was not likely to take place. The not so secret truth is that this trade is a bunch of average stuff at best for a stud who is widely viewed by many to be a 1st rd fantasy pick in dynasty startups, which any sane manager who has played fantasy baseball knows. That’s not even considering folty and cmart! And also, this league rarely ever vetoes trades, so we are not just picking some random trade to suddenly start vetoing. Anyways, my 2 cents. Don’t mean to come off as harsh here and it is my opinion, but wanted to at least make clear that I did not partake in any gathering or “secretive discussion” to come up or convince myself to veto this trade, and frankly had no reason or need to. |
|
|
|
CHC/LAD
Apr 5, 2019 0:45:27 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Red Sox on Apr 5, 2019 0:45:27 GMT -6
Houston sent a message saying everyone vote what you think but I’m going to veto. No secret plotting or collusion I’m aware of.
If enough owners think a deal isn’t fair (all with their own interests in winning) I’m not sure the veto a bad thing is it?
If anything voting against your trade makes the prospect of dealing with you and Dodgers more difficult?
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Apr 5, 2019 7:54:12 GMT -6
I have to say that I hate voting for a veto of a trade.
But this one struck me as a very poor deal right from the start.
Not sure what the game plan would be here? Turner is a Top 10 fantasy asset and right now in this salary cap league - he IS FREE!
I can understand not wanting to lose any wins in the first few weeks....every win matters here....but moving a stud++ for bench/waiver wire compatible players is not a great plan.
I don't believe there was any collusion in the deal at all...nor any collusion in the veto process....I'd just like to see this deal re-worked and a little more even....JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by St.Louis Cardinals on Apr 5, 2019 8:03:01 GMT -6
Houston sent a message saying everyone vote what you think but I’m going to veto. No secret plotting or collusion I’m aware of. If enough owners think a deal isn’t fair (all with their own interests in winning) I’m not sure the veto a bad thing is it? If anything voting against your trade makes the prospect of dealing with you and Dodgers more difficult? Well, I hope you are right that nobody was plotting. Wasn't trying to say it happened, but just that it concerned me to hear. Still, owners should not be engaging other owners in such a way. Whether he said to veto or not, he made it a point to say he planned to veto. Why was it necessary for him to message owners at all if he wasn't trying to entice or influence a vote? We are all adults. If you have a problem, post it to the league, not to owners in secrecy... Allow us to defend our position, or at the very least be aware. Otherwise how am I to feel that the league has talks without me, concerning me. |
|
Feb 4, 2019 14:08:23 GMT -6
Feb 4, 2019 14:08:23 GMT -6