 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Long Term League Talk » REAL interesting trade
geoffrey13
What's the story with this one?:mad:
REAL interesting trade
October 02, 2002 at 04:22PM View BBCode
The recent deal between Brooklyn & Chicago really stinks in my eyes. No way in the majors would a trade be allowed the day before the World Series begins.What's the story with this one?:mad:
jer2911
October 02, 2002 at 04:25PM View BBCode
Bob offered me a young OF for an aging one, and since I am rebuilding, I accepted. I think you are just afraid that you may lose because your team isn't good enough...
geoffrey13
I have no problem with the actual player for player swap but the timing stinks and the player involved should NOT be allowed to play in the World Series.
ummm...yeah whatever
October 02, 2002 at 04:36PM View BBCode
Imagine if the Twins traded for A-ROd the day before the playoffs before the A's started. It would NOT be allowed.I have no problem with the actual player for player swap but the timing stinks and the player involved should NOT be allowed to play in the World Series.
hcboomer
October 02, 2002 at 05:03PM View BBCode
I would totally agree that there should be some sort of cutoff for World Series eligibility when a player is traded. It is a little silly that a Series team could actually use a player acquired AFTER the season concludes and before the Series begins.
jer2911
Also I think that we need to keep in mind that Sim Dynasty is "only" a game (sorry Tyson), and should be treated as such.
Anyway that's my two cents.
(P.S. I take that A's Boy thing as a complement!:D)
October 02, 2002 at 05:40PM View BBCode
Yes Geoffrey, you are right, in the MLB that would not be allowed, but currently in Sim Dynasty there are no rules barring trades happening right before the World Series. And it may be a good idea to institute some sort of "trade deadline". The only reason I would hold against starting it that is that the way SIm Dynasty is set up now could keep the playing field level over the long haul, as the good teams would trade away their prospects for aging stars, and they would not stay good for as long. Thus in order to develop a true "Dynasty" you would have to build a team of young players and continue to develop them and make trades to acquire more young players. Now you could also go the route that the Florida Marlins went a while back, buying up all the All-Stars in order to win a Championship, only to completely dismantle that team in the following years. The way Sim Dynasty is set up now, (whether by design or inability to do otherwise), teams that have no realistic shot at the playoffs this season, or even in the next couple of seasons (like me), are able to trade to acquire the young players that they need to challenge in future seasons.Also I think that we need to keep in mind that Sim Dynasty is "only" a game (sorry Tyson), and should be treated as such.
Anyway that's my two cents.
(P.S. I take that A's Boy thing as a complement!:D)
geoffrey13
And yes, SimDynasty is only a game, but like most games people will attempt to cheat at it. That's the kind of thing which is not needed.
trades and re-building
October 02, 2002 at 06:35PM View BBCode
As I stated in my previous post, I have no problems with the actual trade you made, it's the timing of it. A trade deadline would in no way affect the ability of someone to make a rebuilding style of trade, just that they would have to be done earlier in the season, not the day before the World Series.And yes, SimDynasty is only a game, but like most games people will attempt to cheat at it. That's the kind of thing which is not needed.
geoffrey13
AKA
October 02, 2002 at 07:27PM View BBCode
The cheating is obviously making a trade the day before the world series. Now so far Bob hasn't updated his lineup but by the looks of his lineup he hasn't checked it for a day or 2. If the player isn't used in the World Series than that's another thing entirely.
andrew
October 02, 2002 at 07:32PM View BBCode
I don't see how this is cheating because you (geoffrey13) could have gone and done the same thing before the series. There is nothing that says you can't take advantage of the fact that there is no trading deadline.
hcboomer
I'd argue that the earlier deal we've been talking about, the badly lopsided one between Cincy and Baltimore, is more troubling than this latest one involving Brooklyn. At least this last trade makes sense talent/age wise. And I'd point out to Geoffrey13 that his deal with Cincy was made well past the real-life September 1 deadline for post-season rosters as well.
October 02, 2002 at 07:43PM View BBCode
To suggest someone cheated seems way off base. All that deal does is help point up the need for a deadline. It's hardly cheating if it's within the existing rules.I'd argue that the earlier deal we've been talking about, the badly lopsided one between Cincy and Baltimore, is more troubling than this latest one involving Brooklyn. At least this last trade makes sense talent/age wise. And I'd point out to Geoffrey13 that his deal with Cincy was made well past the real-life September 1 deadline for post-season rosters as well.
FiveToolPlayer
October 02, 2002 at 08:31PM View BBCode
There was no cheating of any kind in the deal between Brooklyn and Chicago but yes it does indicate that we need a trading deadline.
geoffrey13
As far as the fact that I could have made a deal similar to the Brooklyn one before the World series. Sure I could have but maybe it's just possible that I have a bit of integrity? I don't believe in taking advantage of the lack of a rule when anyone with any sense of fair play would simply not take advantage.
deals and deadlines part 1000000000
October 02, 2002 at 08:42PM View BBCode
Just to verify, I offered the deal to Cincy well before the imaginary Sept 1 deadline.As far as the fact that I could have made a deal similar to the Brooklyn one before the World series. Sure I could have but maybe it's just possible that I have a bit of integrity? I don't believe in taking advantage of the lack of a rule when anyone with any sense of fair play would simply not take advantage.
FiveToolPlayer
October 02, 2002 at 08:51PM View BBCode
How can you say that some people have no sense of fair play when you condone that extremely lopsided trade that you just completed? How fair is that? It's unfair to EVERYONE in the league except you. I don't condone the last second trade between Brooklyn and Chicago either but at least it was fair to the league. The only person who is being effected in the short term is you. You're being pretty selfish Geoffery.
geoffrey13
I offered the deal to Cincy about 2 weeks ago, before the non-existent sep 1 deadline.
The deal was offered with the following reasoning. I wanted a better reliever as a recent deal had traded a good reliever for a good starter. I offered the reliever I was upgrading, admittedly he is older but if kept on the roster will most likely not retire and is still effective. I also offered a 20 yr old prospect RP who has a good chance to become a good pitcher with a couple more years seasoning. Cincy was also lacking catchers in a big way, so the (then)31 yr old was intended as a backup (and he hit .280) while the 20 yr old prospect (no power but already a good contact hitter) has a decent shot to become a good platoon/backup type player with a couple of years of seasoning. I certainly didn't force Cincy to accept the deal. I've received far far far worse offers from many people in this league who would have been quite happy had I accepted them.
trade with Cincy
October 02, 2002 at 09:10PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
let me once more re-iterate.
I offered the deal to Cincy about 2 weeks ago, before the non-existent sep 1 deadline.
The deal was offered with the following reasoning. I wanted a better reliever as a recent deal had traded a good reliever for a good starter. I offered the reliever I was upgrading, admittedly he is older but if kept on the roster will most likely not retire and is still effective. I also offered a 20 yr old prospect RP who has a good chance to become a good pitcher with a couple more years seasoning. Cincy was also lacking catchers in a big way, so the (then)31 yr old was intended as a backup (and he hit .280) while the 20 yr old prospect (no power but already a good contact hitter) has a decent shot to become a good platoon/backup type player with a couple of years of seasoning. I certainly didn't force Cincy to accept the deal. I've received far far far worse offers from many people in this league who would have been quite happy had I accepted them.
jer2911
By Merriam-Webster's definition to cheat is, " to violate rules dishonestly". Now if you can tell me where the rules were violated dishonestly, then you may have a case for complaining, but otherwise it's just poor sportsmanship, IMHO.
Also as far as the MLB trading deadline goes, I believe that it doesn't matter when the trades are proposed, but when the are accepted, which would mean that under your "skewed" definition of cheating, you are guilty as well.
October 02, 2002 at 11:28PM View BBCode
I would like to go on record saying that Bob did not "cheat" as you call it Geoffery. He offered that trade to me a while ago, after I posted that message about my team being on the trading block. I had only just today gotten around to accepting it.By Merriam-Webster's definition to cheat is, " to violate rules dishonestly". Now if you can tell me where the rules were violated dishonestly, then you may have a case for complaining, but otherwise it's just poor sportsmanship, IMHO.
Also as far as the MLB trading deadline goes, I believe that it doesn't matter when the trades are proposed, but when the are accepted, which would mean that under your "skewed" definition of cheating, you are guilty as well.
geoffrey13
I'd like to hear Bob's side of this as well as the Cincy manager's side as well. Let's hear from everyone involved and not just those on the perimeter who like to get their 2 cents in on everything.
a while ago?
October 02, 2002 at 11:46PM View BBCode
That being all of 2 days ago of course. Such a long time.I'd like to hear Bob's side of this as well as the Cincy manager's side as well. Let's hear from everyone involved and not just those on the perimeter who like to get their 2 cents in on everything.
hcboomer
I guess the point I'm reiterating, because I think ultimately it would be an important one to the dynasty leagues, is for there to be some simple mechanism to challenge bad deals that unfairly affect an entire league. Why Geoffrey is bothering defending the quality of his deal is beyond me. Doubt there is anyone in the league that would buy it. It's just too lopsided. But he shouldn't feel he HAS to defend it. He offered, Cincy accepted. No collusion or anything I assume. So that's fine.
Regardless of that, however, it's a trade that, were there a means of doing so, would be ripe for challenge and review. Not that anyone did anything wrong or cheated, just that it would be too out of whack to go through.
October 02, 2002 at 11:57PM View BBCode
Boy, this is turning into quite a little contretemps. I'm not sure exactly where Geoffrey13 is coming from. No one did anything "wrong" in his trade with Cincy, and no one did anything "wrong" in the Brooklyn-Chicago deal. Certainly there wasn't any cheating, since no rules were broken. Even if you wanted to get into the spirit of the rules, who knows how many games went by between the Chicago-Brooklyn offer and acceptance? Just as with the Baltimore-Cincy deal, which was apparently sitting there for awhile. Considering all of the site problems going on recently, not worth getting caught up in any of those details since things were kind of thrown off anyway.I guess the point I'm reiterating, because I think ultimately it would be an important one to the dynasty leagues, is for there to be some simple mechanism to challenge bad deals that unfairly affect an entire league. Why Geoffrey is bothering defending the quality of his deal is beyond me. Doubt there is anyone in the league that would buy it. It's just too lopsided. But he shouldn't feel he HAS to defend it. He offered, Cincy accepted. No collusion or anything I assume. So that's fine.
Regardless of that, however, it's a trade that, were there a means of doing so, would be ripe for challenge and review. Not that anyone did anything wrong or cheated, just that it would be too out of whack to go through.
rickoshea
My first thought would be that if somebody had a problem with the trade, he perhaps should have expressed that privately to either those involved with the deal, or Tyson.
Hmmmm
October 03, 2002 at 12:56AM View BBCode
Seems to me, there might be a better way to handle this than this kind of thread on the message board...My first thought would be that if somebody had a problem with the trade, he perhaps should have expressed that privately to either those involved with the deal, or Tyson.
celamantia
--Chris
October 03, 2002 at 04:05AM View BBCode
It's worth remembering that this is the BETA league, and we're here to test. This has brought up an excellent point, the possible need for a trade deadline, which is exactly what Beta League is all about. Please, let's not take it all so personally....--Chris
Bob
October 04, 2002 at 01:43AM View BBCode
Sorry I haven't responded, but I've been out of town and I've had trouble with my internet connection. Unfortunately, I do not have time to address this tonight, but I just wanted to let everyone know that I am not ignoring this situation and will present my side of this debate sometime over the weekend.Pages: 1