|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Feb 5, 2018 17:19:25 GMT
The Twins are aware we're on the clock and still considering our options at this time. Those phone lines must be blowing up right now lol  |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 5, 2018 17:21:04 GMT
I did take Trout. I might have overpaid though lol I dont know, I think you got a pretty good deal as it looks right now. So #2 is officially on the clock? Let's go Twins! And let's have at least the owners of 1st 10 picks on standby and get this moving. Exactly. I have to HIT on a couple of those extra picks, because we KNOW Trout is gonna rake. I have a list together, but won't start zeroing in on guys until we're at least in the 20s on the first round. A couple other thoughts from my view: -Had this NOT been a snake draft I'd have been less inclined to move the #1 -I like the idea of having 9 of the first 180 picks. Since I pick first in Round 7, I essentially have 9 picks in the first "six" rounds. -The falloff from Mike Trout to well, almost anyone, is gonna be large. If I can augment with a bit more depth and covering more positions it may be worth the risk. With 30 teams, you can bet your ass ALL of us will be very weak at a couple positions, at least initially -Toronto made a good deal. He essentially kept his #1 and added this generation's greatest player. I toyed with pushing him for that #1 (instead of the 2 I did get), but because negotiations were late and I didn't detect a huge dropoff in value between the two picks I didn't push it In retrospect I wish I had engaged negotiations much sooner and maybe gotten more players involved and been a bit more demanding, but this weekend was beyond busy and I just didn't have much time to work the phones. BTW-I am ALWAYS open for business. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Feb 5, 2018 17:24:30 GMT
I dont know, I think you got a pretty good deal as it looks right now. So #2 is officially on the clock? Let's go Twins! And let's have at least the owners of 1st 10 picks on standby and get this moving. Exactly. I have to HIT on a couple of those extra picks, because we KNOW Trout is gonna rake. I have a list together, but won't start zeroing in on guys until we're at least in the 20s on the first round. A couple other thoughts from my view: -Had this NOT been a snake draft I'd have been less inclined to move the #1 -I like the idea of having 9 of the first 180 picks. Since I pick first in Round 7, I essentially have 9 picks in the first "six" rounds. -The falloff from Mike Trout to well, almost anyone, is gonna be large. If I can augment with a bit more depth and covering more positions it may be worth the risk. With 30 teams, you can bet your ass ALL of us will be very weak at a couple positions, at least initially -Toronto made a good deal. He essentially kept his #1 and added this generation's greatest player. I toyed with pushing him for that #1 (instead of the 2 I did get), but because negotiations were late and I didn't detect a huge dropoff in value between the two picks I didn't push it In retrospect I wish I had engaged negotiations much sooner and maybe gotten more players involved and been a bit more demanding, but this weekend was beyond busy and I just didn't have much time to work the phones. BTW-I am ALWAYS open for business. LOL Am I reading the trade correctly? Your first two picks are #34 and #60? |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 5, 2018 17:27:46 GMT
Exactly. I have to HIT on a couple of those extra picks, because we KNOW Trout is gonna rake. I have a list together, but won't start zeroing in on guys until we're at least in the 20s on the first round. A couple other thoughts from my view: -Had this NOT been a snake draft I'd have been less inclined to move the #1 -I like the idea of having 9 of the first 180 picks. Since I pick first in Round 7, I essentially have 9 picks in the first "six" rounds. -The falloff from Mike Trout to well, almost anyone, is gonna be large. If I can augment with a bit more depth and covering more positions it may be worth the risk. With 30 teams, you can bet your ass ALL of us will be very weak at a couple positions, at least initially -Toronto made a good deal. He essentially kept his #1 and added this generation's greatest player. I toyed with pushing him for that #1 (instead of the 2 I did get), but because negotiations were late and I didn't detect a huge dropoff in value between the two picks I didn't push it In retrospect I wish I had engaged negotiations much sooner and maybe gotten more players involved and been a bit more demanding, but this weekend was beyond busy and I just didn't have much time to work the phones. BTW-I am ALWAYS open for business. LOL Am I reading the trade correctly? Your first two picks are #34 and #60? Yes having 34 as my #1 is kinda shitty, but I get an extra 2, extra 3 and extra 6. I project some very nice upside guys at 34. Hope they are there of course, but if one of the few guys I am eyeing do fall there I will feel good. If I just have to take "the best available on the board" not as good a feeling. |
|
tWINS
Email
Playing Small Ball
Posts: 129 
|
Post by tWINS on Feb 5, 2018 17:33:58 GMT
Sources: The Twins have narrowed down their draft board and have advanced in trade discussions, but no decision imminent yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Feb 5, 2018 17:35:45 GMT
Am I reading the trade correctly? Your first two picks are #34 and #60? Yes having 34 as my #1 is kinda shitty, but I get an extra 2, extra 3 and extra 6. I project some very nice upside guys at 34. Hope they are there of course, but if one of the few guys I am eyeing do fall there I will feel good. If I just have to take "the best available on the board" not as good a feeling. My bigger concern is that Toronto has #1 and #4. Two of the best four players in a 30 team league will be tough for his division rivals to overcome (not my problem until the playoffs, I guess). He wouldn't budge on #1 for #4 and a few extras? Heck, I would've given you #30 and #31 (plus some spare parts) for #1 and #60 if I would've known that. |
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Feb 5, 2018 17:39:13 GMT
Yes having 34 as my #1 is kinda shitty, but I get an extra 2, extra 3 and extra 6. I project some very nice upside guys at 34. Hope they are there of course, but if one of the few guys I am eyeing do fall there I will feel good. If I just have to take "the best available on the board" not as good a feeling. My bigger concern is that Toronto has #1 and #4. Two of the best four players in a 30 team league will be tough for his division rivals to overcome (not my problem until the playoffs, I guess). He wouldn't budge on #1 for #4 and a few extras? Heck, I would've given you #30 and #31 (plus some spare parts) for #1 and #60 if I would've known that. I'm an idiot. I forgot about the snake format. Toronto's R1 pick is 1-27, not 1-4. I would've murdered you had you given up 1-1 to a team with 1-4 and not gotten 1-4 in the deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 5, 2018 17:39:36 GMT
Yes having 34 as my #1 is kinda shitty, but I get an extra 2, extra 3 and extra 6. I project some very nice upside guys at 34. Hope they are there of course, but if one of the few guys I am eyeing do fall there I will feel good. If I just have to take "the best available on the board" not as good a feeling. My bigger concern is that Toronto has #1 and #4. Two of the best four players in a 30 team league will be tough for his division rivals to overcome (not my problem until the playoffs, I guess). He wouldn't budge on #1 for #4 and a few extras? Heck, I would've given you #30 and #31 (plus some spare parts) for #1 and #60 if I would've known that. Toronto does NOT have #4. His first pick is #27. He has #4 in round 2, which I got. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 5, 2018 17:41:59 GMT
My bigger concern is that Toronto has #1 and #4. Two of the best four players in a 30 team league will be tough for his division rivals to overcome (not my problem until the playoffs, I guess). He wouldn't budge on #1 for #4 and a few extras? Heck, I would've given you #30 and #31 (plus some spare parts) for #1 and #60 if I would've known that. I'm an idiot. I forgot about the snake format. Toronto's R1 pick is 1-27, not 1-4. I would've murdered you had you given up 1-1 to a team with 1-4 and not gotten 1-4 in the deal. LOL. Dude, everyone would have killed me, but naaa I'm not quite that stupid. Like I said I toyed with asking for his #1 instead of his #2...he may have done it, but may have taken tougher negotiations, and time was short. I looked at my list and didn't see a hell of a lot of difference in those two picks so I didn't push it. Oh my...Mike Trout and the #4? Brutal. |
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Feb 5, 2018 17:42:10 GMT
My bigger concern is that Toronto has #1 and #4. Two of the best four players in a 30 team league will be tough for his division rivals to overcome (not my problem until the playoffs, I guess). He wouldn't budge on #1 for #4 and a few extras? Heck, I would've given you #30 and #31 (plus some spare parts) for #1 and #60 if I would've known that. Toronto does NOT have #4. His first pick is #27. He has #4 in round 2, which I got. Yeah. That's my mistake. I addressed it in the post right before this one. |
|
tWINS
Email
Playing Small Ball
Posts: 129
|
Post by tWINS on Feb 5, 2018 19:03:36 GMT
Good luck to everyone with their picks. That decision was one of the most agonizing experiences I've ever had in fantasy sports lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Kansas City Royals on Feb 5, 2018 19:25:09 GMT
I am liking the recent pace...
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 5, 2018 19:25:20 GMT
Altuve was pretty locked in at 2nd overall on my list. A second baseman that rakes like he does, steals bases.
|
|
|
|
Post by deleted on Feb 5, 2018 19:37:23 GMT
Altuve was pretty locked in at 2nd overall on my list. A second baseman that rakes like he does, steals bases. I had him at #6 or #7 on my list (Trout was #2) but it doesn't really matter since there are still like 27 picks before I'm up. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals on Feb 5, 2018 19:38:27 GMT
Altuve was pretty locked in at 2nd overall on my list. A second baseman that rakes like he does, steals bases. Agreed but was thinking we may have had people over think the dynasty aspect. |
|
