-
I definitely feel like players coming off the 60-day DL is a different issue than drafting/bidding on too many players. Under the "no consequence" rule, what's to keep me from just starting auctions on the top 30 free-agent prospects for $3 each? I will win the majority of them and be illegal, but go into the next year with a battery of young talent. Keeping the rosters valid matters.
-
How is it anti-competitive if I know I can't win? It is competitive for next year, surely. How can you not notice if a guy comes of the 60-day? You get a giant red banner at the top of your screen and a prompt to cut someone.
-
Of course, that's anti-competitive behavior. Which I always say is an auto-ban. You guys keep putting forward this scenario like it's at all similar to the situation I or whoever had Melancon come off the 60-day went through. It's not. In one case, I was legal again in 72 hours. In the other case, the guy just didn't notice a player come off the 60-day.
-
Here is my "adult" response: if you didn't plan on using this to circumvent the rules, you wouldn't care so much. I am sure you will complain when I am at 50/40 players with 10 days to go in September.
-
Cool. Here's my "we're adults" take. We can let people manage their own damned rosters in their own damned time. As long as they aren't being anti-competitive, it doesn't really matter when they cut their extra scrub.
-
Wow, it sounds so simple when you put it that way :)
-
Why are we acting as though we aren't all adults here? No, I'm not suggesting anyone is immature. I am saying, I check my team at least twice daily. Despite my crummy track record in the league, I am trying. I don't expect everyone to check his lineup/player news as frequently as I do. However, I do expect a modicum of effort & interest. Consequently, 48 hours seems adequate. If I'm on vacay for 10 days & I miss a roster change (DL/auction), I want the commish to make me legal af
-
I'm more inclined to a week or ten days. Seems like it's possible this could happen by accident (like with someone coming off a 60 day dl) and I think we should be sensitive to the possibility of people being unavailable on short notice
GP3 on
June 4, 2018 3:43 PM
-
Why not 10 days from the transaction? That should work for everyone.
-
Proposal: When the commish notices you have gone illegal, he notifies you by message and with a public post AND states explicitly what action he will take (i.e. who he is going to cut) if you don’t get legal. You have 48 hours from *that* message to get legal, or to petition for some sort of exception (eg, I’ll be legal in 60 hours because X). If you can’t be reached and violation looks accidental, commish has discretion to grant reprieve.
Brass NHPs on
June 4, 2018 3:31 PM
-
Why are you so sure your opinion on this issue is the right one? This isn't nonsense; instead it's a rule that has developed from the countless Ottoneu-seasons of our community. Many owners that you know well and respect from RotoGraphs and other Ottoneu leagues have adopted similar rules in my leagues with them.
-
Look, we're not going to agree on this. We have philosophically different attitudes on the issue. I've been waiting for you to realize it's easier/better to just do nothing. Clearly that's not going to happen. I'll drop it, and you do whatever nonsense you want. Just make sure it's clearly codified in a supplemental constitution of some kind and that we all have access to it. Otherwise, this is going to happen every time somebody is illegal for a couple days.
-
Niv's response: "In my league, we've definitely had people be in an illegal state for over 48 hours due to legitimate reasons. But, if you want your league to be encouraged to stay active and present, this is seems like a fine way to do it. I'd defer to what your league members prefer overall, and wouldn't consider this league-specific rule out of line."
-
My response: "Thanks. What we are doing is giving people 48 hours to either a) get legal, or b) have an auction started, the result of which will make them legal. Does that sound reasonable? One person is arguing that the built-in restrictions are designed to be a stand-alone penalty, and no additional action should be taken regardless of how long they're illegal."
-
From Niv, the founder of Ottoneu: "It's up to each league to figure out how they want to interpret it (Rule 1C). Fielding an illegal roster while you wait for a trade to process vs fielding an illegal roster because you don't care to set lineups for 2 months are two very different things, for example. The game works best when everyone has a legal roster, and I'd generally encourage owners to meet that very low standard."
-
In fact, Niv has worked quite hard to come up with a way of making illegality more punishing, because owners like you still do it.
-
I don't understand what 'rule optimization' is. You realized that Niv has weighed in on this several times and supported this kind of rule?
-
Rule optimization. The league is better with the default settings.
-
I guess I don't understand why you are fighting this so hard. What is your motivation here?
-
That's anti-competitive behavior and an auto-ban. Nobody's going to do that here. And we don't need someone microing the number of hours we have to resolve temporary overages.
-
I have indeed seen it in the final month - twice - and both times a commissioner had to make a discretionary decision because no rules were in place.
-
Since illegality blocks your ability to participate in new auctions, I think the opportunity cost of losing the ability to bid on new call ups, draft picks, injured players who are cut, etc. and the chance to swing a trade with a contending team seems to work pretty well as a deterrent on that front.
GP3 on
June 4, 2018 2:53 PM
-
I barely care about this because I'm comfortable with either a commissioner intervention or the built-in rules remaining (I just voted on the survey, by the way). The feared scenario is clearly the one Roswell raises - an owner who isn't competing starts a bunch of auctions and then carries an illegal roster because he doesn't want to cut anyone. I have never seen that scenario happen in 6 Ottoneu seasons across 3 leagues, however.
GP3 on
June 4, 2018 2:51 PM
-
This is indeed silly, but more because it's obvious that the rules do NOT cause rosters fix themselves. If I am not competing, I neither care about setting lineups or accruing points and thus, no self-fix to an appropriate, legal roster. Leagues have broken up because of unclear rules and gray areas (e.g. trading players to each other so that each team can cut and rebid). It's certainly not illegal based on the rules, but it also is completely unenforceable without commissioner intervention.
-
Please everyone take this survey so we can try to come to a consensus on this issue: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XMGSQZV
-
I mean, you can say it's the last time, but that's not really how I read that rule. Nor is it how I've seen it interpreted in other leagues. The penalties built into the system are precisely so teams can't compete while maintaining an oversized roster. The commissioner clause is to deal with cases of anti-competitive behavior (your dreaded fantasy scenario of a guy rostering 50 players).
-
(Strongly agree)
-
For the last time Brad, I am not inventing a rule. It's literally the third rule of Ottoneu (1C): Teams are not allowed to knowingly field an illegal roster. Period. Nowhere does it say that the built-in restrictions are designed to be penalties in and of themselves. In fact, the rule explicitly says that violators of 1C are to be penalized at the discretion of the commissioner.
-
I don't like the commissioner choosing to invent unnecessary rules. But if he's going to, he should probably cut the most sensible player.
-
I don't like the commissioner choosing who to cut. And I think we should have discussed this before it happened! The punishment should be a) no points accrued or b) the transaction that made the roster illegal should be rolled back (and in the case of a 60 DL player, we cut that player or the next to the last player added).
-
It's just so unnecessary. The "problem" fixes itself because ottoneu already has appropriate penalties built into the design. I don't understand why anybody would want to waste their time on something that's not an issue.
-
I'm 45 years old & never encountered anyone NOT playing within clearly defined rules. I've witnessed people stretch rules, bend rules, question rules, & curse about rules. I've been doing this for 20 years. Call it silly & dumb all you want; as a member of this league since its founding, I'm proud of the commish's executive decision. Blame the rest of us all you want, it's on the owner to be legal.
Not my friendliest message, I know. But I loathe victim-blaming. My apolog
-
Honestly, top 5 dumbest rules I've come across in all my years and leagues of fantasy baseballing. We're talking several hundred league-seasons and some really wonky rules (some of which I schemed up myself).
-
Next time, if at all possible, please send a message more than an hour before you cut one of my dudes. I understand the rule and that I was out of legality, but it's also kind of silly.
-
Just saw this in my email. I guess I'm fine with the cut–what threw me off was Melancon moving off the 60-day which cost me a roster spot–but I suppose I wouldn't have preferred to lose one of my only five healthy starting pitchers.
-
Y'all are silly.
-
And just to clarify, it was a cut, not a removal. Halifax sustains a $1 cap penalty from the cut.
-
I decided to remove $1 Zach Davies from Halifax's roster, because in my view he's the most easily replaceable. I didn't want to cut a prospect since I don't know how he values those guys. It was a $4 win on an auction for a prospect that made him illegal, so I decided he needed to know that winning the auction would make him illegal. So the rule is: it's your job to keep track, and everyone needs to be legal (or have an auction that will make you legal) within 48 hrs.
-
My view is he has to get legal immediately once he logs in. If he hasn’t responded to messages or logged in since Wednesday, he’s probably got something going on outside of the league that’s distracting him rather than trying to get around the rule.
Brass NHPs on
June 3, 2018 7:08 PM
-
I vote cut. It's time. Easy rule to follow.
-
Our discussion was on the public message board, so I have to assume he saw it. But what's giving me pause are two simple words in Rule 1C, which states that "At no time should a team willingly go over roster and salary cap limits. If a team knowingly does this, they will face penalties at the discretion of their league's commissioner." It's the words "willingly" and "knowingly" that are holding me up, since I'm not convinced he's aware that he's illegal.
-
I’m pretty black and white when it comes to rules so maybe not the best sounding board. Are we sure he was in on the discussion?...if so I’d do the cut.
-
OK so Halifax Explosion has been illegal for 48+ hours. My gut feeling is that it's totally unintentional since he hasn't logged in since May 30. But considering our discussion a few weeks ago, I feel like I need to take action for the sake of treating everyone equally. Does anyone have any feedback? What I would do is remove the player whom I deem to be the most obvious cut/least important player on his roster. I have tried messaging Halifax but haven't received a response.
-
Tim Lincecum's Mustache's trade block has been updated!
-
Dunder Mifflin Ramblin' Reams's trade block has been updated!
SABRfish on
May 30, 2018 7:53 PM
-
Mos Eisley Rodian Raiders's trade block has been updated!
-
Get legal, or at least have auction(s) active that will make you legal, within 48 hours of becoming illegal.
-
That there are more important things to worry about :)
-
What did we decide about illegal rosters?
-
Tim Lincecum's Mustache's trade block has been updated!
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages