Yankees/Athletics

[Deleted]

Yankees Acquire:
SP Zach Eflin (300k)
SP Adys Portillo (300k)
OF Nick Swisher (31.5M)

Athletics Acquire:
SP Brad Peacock (12M)

Finally rid of Nick Swisher!

[Braves GM (Jared)]

Ha you signed him!

Approve

[Deleted]

I do this deal as I pick up two good prospect for Peacock. I will be using my one free drop on Nick Swisher.

[Deleted]

I was under pressure to come back from a 1-18 season!

(1-0)

[Deleted]

So lame to attempt to fleece every new owner with the same move. Starting with me.

Veto. This is not in the spirit of the free drop rule for new owner. I can't imagine it was created with this in mind.

[Orioles GM (Michael)]

Veto. See above.

[Angels GM (Derrick)]

Veto as well, I feel the same way Allen does....(1-3)

[Deleted]

Does this trade offset the balance of the league? no.
Does this trade HURT the Yankees? no.
Does this trade HURT the Athletics? no.

How am I "fleecing" a new owner?

This is the definition of "to fleece":
"to deprive of money or belongings by fraud, hoax, or the like"

I am not doing this to Jeff. He completely understood the rule when explained, and he was not deprived of money or belongings (in this case a player).

"Please vote based on the fairness and only the fairness of the trade."

This is directly from the rules. Just because I am not using a rule in the spirit it was intended to be used in, means you should veto it? Your disagreements with the rules are not grounds to veto, and that was not the spirit of the veto rule.

I find this very hypocritical. The excuse to use a rule in a way that it was not intended to be used in was that another league member was doing the same thing. If someone killed my daughter, does this mean I should go kill their daughter? No. It is still against the rules to kill the daughter in both scenarios.


"Teams may not veto based on that 1) a player they wanted was traded to another team 2) they have a grudge against a certain owner 3) a past deal between the two teams was bad."

This also comes straight from the rules. All three of these are "in spirit" (because that is what really matters, obviously, and not the rules that were written) because you three don't want Nick Swisher to move teams, you obviously have a tendency to veto my trades because I'm the one making them, and Allen is vetoing because his trade with me went bad.

The "spirit" of the rule was to allow new owners to get rid of bad contracts signed by previous management, which he did by losing Brad Peacock.

I view these personal, vindictive attempts to scrutinize my every transactions as one of the reasons I considered leaving. I have been on both sides of awful trades, but only the trades that involve me improving are the trades shot down.

The "spirit" of a veto is to uphold the balance of the league, which would mean teams should be as close to even as possible. The Oakland Athletics have a career record of 13-38 in Base Knock, and the Yankees have a career record of 24-27 (combining to a .363 winning percentage, which would have been 29th in major league baseball last season) Both teams improve in the trade, and would theoretically move closer to .500 next season. All three teams that vetoed exhibit winning records that come out to a .680 winning percentage (which would be first in major league baseball by .083 points). The only way that these teams can win in such absurd quantities is if they keep the worse teams as "easy wins".

A fantasy league is supposed to be competitive and fun, but when it is filled with malicious personal attacks on specific people, hypocrites, and arguably collusion, it is not fun...

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Noah, I think the problem we have with this deal is that you were the one that wanted Jeff to take over the Yankees franchise for this league. His first move in the league was one that allows you break free of a HUGE mistake contract by taking advantage of the new owner free drop rule.
The purpose of the free drop owner rule, and maybe I should add this, should be to allow the new team to have a little bit of breathing room in their cap room to help with making the team what they want it.

While, yes, he does cut cap with Peacock leaving, it is all based on the premise that you are getting out of a Swisher contract because you found a flaw in the system. However, if you read closely, the rules say that the player must be "on his team upon his arrival."

This means that Swisher would need to already be a part of the New York Yankees when Jeff joined this league in order to be eligible for the new owner drop. Although I didn't see a trade like this ever taking place with such intentions (if there even are any), it does prevent owners from getting a "Get Out of Jail Free" card by exploiting this rule.

So, I am sorry that this portion of the rule hasn't been made clear earlier and has caused some confusion, that is my fault.

I don't think that Allen, Derrick, or Mike are voting based on past harms, as I can clearly see a way where this would be a murky trade. Let's please not make this any bigger than it really is.

[Mike (Former Mets GM)]

Veto. This could be considered collusion.

[Deleted]

I don't know. You could look at it as a cap clearing deal but the thing that gets me is that it almost seems premeditated.
I'm not saying you said any of this but I could imagine someone with Swisher's contract saying "Help me out and take Swisher, you can drop him using your new owner drop"
Nothing personal but, veto.

[Matt (Former Padres GM)]

I don't think I've vetoed any of your deals Noah but the owner drop as Alex explained is someone who is on the roster the new owner inherits. This was the way I understood it when I took over last year. In this case it seems like your getting the "free" drop by making a deal like this.

Veto

[Matt (Former Padres GM)]

Sent too many

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

This deal is cancelled because it wouldn't work under the free owner drop rules.