-
Tim Lincecum's Mustache's trade block has been updated!
-
I strongly remember that in the first couple years (at least!) of Ottoneu the penalty for an illegal roster was that no points accrued. It was a problem at times when people would win auctions after they went to bed (i.e. 2am) - I remember guessing you had bid on players based on who made late night drops, and also strategically starting auctions. So anyway, I guess I am making that up or it was changed! I think it's a reasonable penalty: 48 hours grace period, and then you stop accruing points.
-
All of that being objectively true and articulately stated, I don't mind if put in some extra rule that you have to be legal after, say 48 or 72 hours, but I think the most important thing is that we define the consequence. I would think it has to be something like the commissioner cuts the player you most recently acquired who put you over the limit.
GP3 on
May 11, 2018 7:07 AM
-
First of all - screw Potter Stewart for that dumbass obscenity quote. I can only assume he was drunk as hell when he wrote that. I'm a little wary of a 48 hour limit (what's the enforcement mechanism? What if someone's on vacation and someone comes off the 60 day DL, forcing them over?). I'm not concerned about the problem of someone auctioning a dozen players and sitting on a 50 man roster in this league. I tend to agree that the built-in enforcement on Ottoneu is sufficient
GP3 on
May 11, 2018 7:02 AM
-
While I don't think we need a set rule beyond "be competitive," I don't object to establishing one. Whatever makes you happy so long as it's clear and uniformly applicable. Personally, if I have the options of "let the software handle it" I will choose that 100% of the time.
-
Fair enough. There's certainly no harm in clarity. My issue is that because it's such a common occurrence it feels weird that this is the time we think we need to solve the problem.
-
@Raiders: Having an illegal roster for *some* period of time is a common occurrence in Ottoneu, and since it happens so often I definitely think it's best to have a concrete policy, whatever it may be.
-
I support that policy. You have 48 hours to hold a legal roster. No grey area.
-
Honest question: do we really feel the need to legislate to protect every potential violation of the rules?
-
Yep, seconded. We need a policy moving forward.
One player over. No more than that. 24 hours after player is off waivers, if not back on auction, owner must get legal. Keeps it simple. My $.02.
-
*personal
-
So what would happen if no one had auctioned Puig? At what point would you have been forced to make a cut or be penalized? We can't leave that wide open to interpretation. You made the argument that the natural penalties built into Ottoneu are "effective and [an] entirely sufficient solution to the problem." I disagree, and the scenario I described below was an illustration as to why. All I'm saying is that I would prefer to have a uniform policy that applies to all cases. Nothing pers
-
It's like the famous quote about porn/art. You'll know it when you see it.
-
So how do we know where that line is? Where an owner should be removed? 2 players over? 5 players? $5? $10?
-
You're creating an irrelevant scenario as an excuse to "fix" a non-problem. If somebody behaves as you describe, we would remove the owner and probably discuss as a league whether we should just undo all the adds or let the new owner decide how they want to handle it.
-
To clarify: I've typically seen a 48-hour grace period after which time rosters *must* be legal, meaning this case with Puig would be a violation since the auction won't conclude for another 48 hours. Whatever we decide to do here obviously must apply to all future cases. For those wondering, Rule 1c states: "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."
-
The problem with simply allowing the natural penalties (can't make lineups, propose or accept trades, claim players, bid on auctions, etc) to act as enforcement is this: Someone could auction and bid on a whole host of players at once, win them all, and just sit on a massively illegal roster for the remainder of the season. We can't set this precedent, in my opinion. So we need an official policy for how long an owner has to get legal, which Rule 1c says is necessary.
-
I agree, it helps to make sure the policy is clear, agreed upon, and understood. FWIW my take on this is simply about different interpretations of the intention of the rules. I don't think this was some flagrant attempt to circumvent the rules.
-
(Sorry for weird formatting. I guess you can't do line breaks on the message board.)
-
The issue, as I see it, is this:
We need to adopt an official policy regarding how long owners have to make a roster legal after it becomes illegal. I have typically seen 48-hour grace periods, and that is my preference.
The question is: does that mean owners have 48 hours to *actually* get legal, or do they get 48 hours before an auction is started that will make them legal (which applies here).
I am open to other timeframes besides 48 hours, and other general policies. Feedback welcome.
-
I think we should always have a legal roster. Winning an auction equates to cutting a player. It’s only fair to the other owners. I can say that this is the first time in 6 years that this rule has been discussed in this particular league if my memory serves me.
-
Temporary overages while players clear is pretty standard in FG Staff #1 and #2.
-
I am not okay with this tactic, for the record. I am in zero other leagues where this behavior is tolerated.
-
So we're square, right? I sit in roster limbo until 4:04pm on Saturday.
-
I meant ! by ? but I am thrilled by the prospect of someone taking Zimmerman off my ledger ;)
-
If Puig is worth $9, is Ryan Zimmerman worth $15! Please bid accordingly!! :p
-
Done
-
I believe he has cleared waivers if you would like to start that process :)
-
I can tell you unequivocally that I will bid $9 for Puig.
-
Again...I'm fine with the natural consequences. I'm not fine with a presumption that a 2.41 PPG Puig is presently worth $9. Will he be by season's end? Probably.
And I'm certainly opposed to undoing a fully-intended transaction. A 24-48 hour grace period is seemingly a well-reasoned decision. If Puig isn't on the auction block by the end of that timeframe...rules is rules.
-
I mean, if you are intentionally overbidding your budget and sitting out the season, are you even really playing? Nobody is going to do that. I think in this case it's someone who made a rational calculation that conformed to the rules. He claimed a player which put him over even after cutting, but he has to sit out the season until his other player gets won at auction.
-
One final thought: a $9 Puig might be below value to YOU, but he's been really really bad, and I would like to see a lot more before I commit money to him. I am happy to let him sit
-
Rational behavior is that I can force you to cut at least a $4 player. If it isn't such a big deal, then make a cut Brad :)
-
The slippery slope is a huge problem though - one could auction and bid on 2, 5, 10, 20 guys and just ride out the season. It is an unacceptable precedent to set.
-
Additionally, the rules, as I know them, are that I'm banned from managing my lineup or making trades until my roster is legal. I'm prepared to pay that penalty. All decisions to this point were made with that as the understood penalty. It's an effective and entirely sufficient solution to the problem.
-
Rational behavior is to roster players below value. A $9 Puig is well below value. Since nobody benefits from my roster being illegal, there's no further considerations. Decision tree is: Should $9 Puig be owned? Yes. Is there any other benefit to not owning $9 Puig? No. *nominate Puig*
-
*and wanted input from the league and guidance first. I am requesting a small grace period myself before choosing how to respond to this situation.
-
I know we have to be careful of the slippery slope, but he's only over by $2, and only until Puig goes to auction which he certainly will. The 'punishment' in this case is either make him take Puig back or make him cut another player to get under his cap. Looking at his roster, he's likely to cut a guy like JBJ. It's not like he's really gaining any significant advantage.
I honestly don't think it's that big a deal in this case. If he was like $60 over or whatever, it'd be different.
-
The penalty, I thought, is that points stop accruing? One reason I like ottoneu is because most of the rules are built in. I don't like to decide anything.
-
Clarifications: As commissioner, it is not my job to "decide" which rules to enforce; I strive to enforce them all as reasonably and fairly as I can. What I actually decided to do was give Brad a 48-hour grace period to get legal, which is the conventional practice to the best of my knowledge. Lastly, to state that I have "refused" to described the penalty is intentionally misleading and inflammatory. As I told Brad, I haven't had enough time to think about it, and wanted inp
-
Not spite you - you benefit from this directly. Everyone is behaving rationally
-
Though I am not convinced Puig will be added to someone's roster anytime soon, I'm also fine with natural consequences of your roster being locked (I'm sure as hell not bailing you out via waiver; not at $17). If no one takes Puig to auction when he's eligible, I'd be fine with a 24-hour grace period until you have to start making cuts.
Under no exception, in this case, do I think it's acceptable for the move to be undone as though it never happened. You know the rules. You gambled; you lost.
-
Also, it seems... improbable... that 11 owners would prefer to spite me than own a $9 Puig. That's a hell of a thing to give up just to make me cut a few scrubs.
-
Nobody else claimed Osuna. He would become a free agent. I'm prepared to accept this outcome with Puig being returned to my roster.
-
I wasn’t following it closely as it happened, did someone else put a claim in on Osuna? The appropriate action would be to void the transaction and give Osuna to the next person in line, given that he was acquired in violation of the rules. If no one else wanted him, I think locking the team is sufficient assuming Puig gets picked up. Rules leave it to commish, so this is just my two cents.
Brass NHPs on
May 10, 2018 3:36 PM
-
One final, real-life example: In champs today (530), Justin won Kershaw and could have kept Lester and Sisco since Strasburg will be re-auctioned immediately. But he didn't...because he needed to make his roster legal right away
-
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion - why would we bail you out? Ben is literally just doing his job as commissioner. I across 7 leagues, I have always seen this rule consistently enforced. Nice commissioners give 24 - 48 hour grace periods. Bad ones cut players for you.
-
While it might not be squirmy in 83rd place, the rules are the rules; plus, none of us are dumb enough to bail you out. Let's see some cuts!
-
Lastly, ottoneu has already enforced a penalty. I may not manage my lineups, view the player pool, or propose trades. Basically, I can go to the home page, my cut page, or the messaging app. This is already an appropriate penalty.
-
I have proposed an additional solution. Since I’ve never seen anybody enforce this rule despite being broken a handful of times per season per league, I had no reason to think waiting 3 days for Puig to be rostered would be a problem. If waiting is unacceptable, I propose undoing my waiver claim on Osuna and restoring Puig to my roster as a compromise solution.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages