|
|
Post by Jeff (Former Rangers GM) on Apr 22, 2013 13:42:29 GMT -5
Rangers Aquire-
Mike Leake SP CIN $0.4M (4 of 4)
Steve Cishek RP MIA $0.4M (3 of 4)
Marlins Aquire-
Matt Smoral P TOR (prospect)
Nolan Gannon P TB (prospect)
Zach Bird P LAD (prospect)
Marcus Semien SS CWS (prospect)
I confirm. Pleasure working with you as always Brandon. Smoral's gonna be something special.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 14:05:00 GMT -5
I accept. I am a fan of Smoral, and the other two arms are the type of guys that I like to take flyers on. I also like Semien more than most. Nice dealing once again
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Derrick) on Apr 22, 2013 15:55:06 GMT -5
Veto
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 16:07:43 GMT -5
Approve. Derrick, you should probably give a reason for your veto.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2013 18:47:15 GMT -5
I'm guessing it has something to do with our failed Cishek negotiations
|
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Apr 22, 2013 19:38:42 GMT -5
Approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Max) on Apr 22, 2013 22:01:53 GMT -5
This further proves my "veto happy" theory. And from the Commish's right-hand man, no less. Ridiculous... This deal is great for both sides and in no way, shape, or form a veto. PASS (3-1)Max |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 22, 2013 23:18:36 GMT -5
Approve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt (Former Padres GM) on Apr 22, 2013 23:31:21 GMT -5
Approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Derrick) on Apr 22, 2013 23:42:27 GMT -5
Jeff-
I'm curious as to what makes you think "Smoral's gonna be something special"? He hasn't pitched since his junior year in high school.
Michael-
I've tried to shy away from attempting to influence others votes through explaining why I vote the way I vote. Some GMs in here like to do their best to pursuade others how to vote. I've tried to not be that guy. Others relish in it, not I.
Max-
You can run your league the way you'd like....in here each GM gets a vote, and each GMs vote counts the same. Contrary to your approve all trades no matter what theory, vetoes are sometimes a good thing. I would hate to be in a league that lets every trade pass no matter what. I've been in those kinds of leagues in the past....they tend to not last longer then a year or two, so I wish you the best of luck. Lol...."veto happy", If anything your D'Arnaud trade should've been vetoed....that was ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 21:05:07 GMT -5
approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Max) on Apr 23, 2013 21:43:45 GMT -5
Jeff- I'm curious as to what makes you think "Smoral's gonna be something special"? He hasn't pitched since his junior year in high school. Michael- I've tried to shy away from attempting to influence others votes through explaining why I vote the way I vote. Some GMs in here like to do their best to pursuade others how to vote. I've tried to not be that guy. Others relish in it, not I. Max- You can run your league the way you'd like....in here each GM gets a vote, and each GMs vote counts the same. Contrary to your approve all trades no matter what theory, vetoes are sometimes a good thing. I would hate to be in a league that lets every trade pass no matter what. I've been in those kinds of leagues in the past....they tend to not last longer then a year or two, so I wish you the best of luck. Lol...."veto happy", If anything your D'Arnaud trade should've been vetoed....that was ridiculous. Veto happy, veto happy, veto happy. You have to let people play, persay. Everyone gets a vote, yes. But that doesn't mean everything gets vetoed. It's a fine line between unfair and veto. Just because one side "wins" doesn't mean it's automatically a veto. It's not letting everything pass, it's allowing GMs to run their teams. Hell, half the deals I approve I wouldn't personally have done. But that doesn't mean they aren't good. I usually prefer one side to another in deals, but that does not mean it's a veto. Everyone has a method and should be able to execute it in their own way. I don't just approve everything, either. But I let everyone run their team and only veto when something really is unfair and one party is getting "jobbed". Vetoes are supposed to be for the good of the league. Not because you wouldn't do this deal if it were your team. You know you're too veto happy when you're the only veto with, what, 6 passes now? Lastly, that's bullshit saying you "shy away from attempting to influence others votes through explaining why I vote the way I vote". Explain why you think it's a veto because now, honestly, I have every reason to believe you are vetoing due to your failed Steve Cishek negotiations. Unless you provide a reason as to why you veto this deal that's truly what I think and that is wrong and unjust to both parties. Especially coming from the Commissioner's top assistant. Max |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 23, 2013 23:36:36 GMT -5
Derrick's been here since the beginning of the league, Max. I'd chill, bro.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Max) on Apr 24, 2013 6:53:29 GMT -5
Derrick's been here since the beginning of the league, Max. I'd chill, bro. Doesn't matter that he's been here since the beginning of the league. When there are 6 passes and he's the only veto (without a reason, mind you) something's up. Alex, take your vote on my Machado deal for example. You were on the fence and clearly thought one side got more value than the other. However, you still approved because it wasn't so ridiculously unfair that it would ruin the league and it's competitive balance. That's what needs to happen. Not just a non-explained veto every time a deal slightly favors one side or the other Max |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 24, 2013 8:44:40 GMT -5
Max,
I the reason I approved your Machado deal is to prevent stuff like this happened. I'd rather just pass a trade that isn't that bad with some owners, to avoid this type of arguing. I personally think you ripped Indians, and Tigers, and a few others off by getting their high picks for either garbage, or a package worth an elite player for simply a really good prospect.
We've both seen it too many times where teams have decimated other teams at the beginning of the league, and it simply puts teams in holes it's nearly impossible to dig out of unless you rip other teams off drastically. And although you may not like it, vetoing is absolutely necessary and is one of the reasons this league is still going strong after 3 years with an entire 30 members. Without it, this becomes a 7,8 team league with a lot of disinterested, non-active owner.
If it annoys you that someone is vetoing your deals, ignore it. The deal's obviously going to pass anyway, so if Derrick wants to make a point by throwing a veto into a trade that's going to pass, where in the rules does it stop him? Yeah, you may not like it, and if it's happened over and over AND over again, then it's a problem.
Ultimately, however competitive and fun I try to make this, this is a 100% free dynasty baseball league that I've put a TON of work into. On-going feuds like this cause people to leave and make me have to find new GM's (which sucks...).
It's pretty much Derrick and I running the league at this point with Gregg gone and a few others backing off, lot of stuff to do. We're just trying to keep this league going as long as we can.
Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 20:23:07 GMT -5
Approve
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Max) on Apr 24, 2013 20:45:26 GMT -5
Max, I the reason I approved your Machado deal is to prevent stuff like this happened. I'd rather just pass a trade that isn't that bad with some owners, to avoid this type of arguing. I personally think you ripped Indians, and Tigers, and a few others off by getting their high picks for either garbage, or a package worth an elite player for simply a really good prospect. We've both seen it too many times where teams have decimated other teams at the beginning of the league, and it simply puts teams in holes it's nearly impossible to dig out of unless you rip other teams off drastically. And although you may not like it, vetoing is absolutely necessary and is one of the reasons this league is still going strong after 3 years with an entire 30 members. Without it, this becomes a 7,8 team league with a lot of disinterested, non-active owner. If it annoys you that someone is vetoing your deals, ignore it. The deal's obviously going to pass anyway, so if Derrick wants to make a point by throwing a veto into a trade that's going to pass, where in the rules does it stop him? Yeah, you may not like it, and if it's happened over and over AND over again, then it's a problem. Ultimately, however competitive and fun I try to make this, this is a 100% free dynasty baseball league that I've put a TON of work into. On-going feuds like this cause people to leave and make me have to find new GM's (which sucks...). It's pretty much Derrick and I running the league at this point with Gregg gone and a few others backing off, lot of stuff to do. We're just trying to keep this league going as long as we can. Thanks The thing that irks me so much is that he gave no reason. I don't whine about my trades being vetoed. This deal involves me in no way. However, I think he must give a reason only because we see this conflict of interest as pointed out by Brandon. They had failed Steve Cishek negotiations. I understand your point of for the good of the league, but I really see a problem when he is the only veto and there is a lingering conflict of interest with no reason to disregard that claim. Max |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Derrick) on Apr 24, 2013 23:16:17 GMT -5
Max-
I wasn't even going to entertain your ongoing nonsense, but now, in an attempt to correct your many inaccuracies I feel I have to say something in response.
I'm still confused as to why YOUR irked that I gave no reason. You are correct in that this trade has absolutely nothing to do with you, but that's been just about the only thing you've been ranting about accurately. You constantly whine about trades being vetoed, reguardless of whether a reason for the veto was given or not. You are incorrect in that there is any lingering conflict of interest. The trade talks I had with Brandon in reguards to Cishek ended over 2 months ago (Feb. 24 to be exact). So I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that trade talks that concluded by me not responding over 2 months ago have any baring on how I'd vote on a trade today. If that were the case, I'd have vetoed most of the recent trades, since I've been in trade talks for most of the recently traded players. Maybe that's how you operate, but I regret to inform you that I do not.
BTW....have you checked out my bullpen....Cishek would barely make my 25-man roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Former Rangers GM) on Apr 24, 2013 23:28:33 GMT -5
Max was just pointing out what Brandon said. He said you vetoed because there may be lingering issues from your past negotiations of Cishek. Also has Brandon even been in the league for 2 months? I thought he was one of the new new guys.
On top of that I do agree with Max that this league is too veto happy but there has been some deals that were rightfully vetoed and some that should've passed regardless of who you think won or not. I don't see how this trade could've garnered a veto. It's a perfectly fair deal for what both sides are looking at doing. But I guess it's your opinion and I won't keep going on about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Derrick) on Apr 24, 2013 23:40:57 GMT -5
Once again....I'm still trying to figure out what "lingering issues" your both talking about. I've been in this league for 3 seasons now, I've had trade talks about alot of players. My trade negotiations have never been reflected in the way I vote on trades.
Jeff, when you inqired as to why I vetoed, I expressed my reasoning to you. I'm still confused at to why Max cares so much.
For the record....Brandon has been in the league since February 13th.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 24, 2013 23:41:31 GMT -5
Okay, let's move on here. We are not getting rid of the ability to deny certain trades, sorry if that "irks" anybody, not just Max, but it's the way things have gone, and it's worked well!
This is a FREE DYNASTY BASEBALL league, keep it in perspective guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Former Rangers GM) on Apr 24, 2013 23:43:50 GMT -5
Brandon was the one who said there was possible lingering issues. Max and I were just referring to that. Flip over to page 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Derrick) on Apr 24, 2013 23:49:27 GMT -5
Brandon was the one who said there was possible lingering issues. Max and I were just referring to that. Flip over to page 1. Understood....but both you and Max should clarify facts, and circumstances before bringing up things you have no personal knowledge of. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeff (Former Rangers GM) on Apr 24, 2013 23:54:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry man. I thought you would have had read what he posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Apr 25, 2013 9:18:12 GMT -5
And this is official  |
|
