-
Yes to keep shrews
-
But then again, when I was rebuilding I just benched my entire lineup so I could get first waiver priority. I recognize I took advantage of it, and I'm fine if you guys don't want to do that, but I think like this last 4 team vote, it would be something to encourage activity and trying to keep a decent team on the field. I think the last 4 vote motivated some people this year and I think the innings / games minimum might be a good thing to continue and encourage activity
-
However, I think it would be a good idea if we institute a Innings limit (say 1300 innings) and require a certain percentage of games to be played at every position. (something like 75%?) That way we can make sure that everyone is at least fielding a team. And if you are checking your team enough to do that, it will also encourage more waiver/trade participation, and higher scores for everyone.
-
I vote yes to keep Shrews. He's as active as anyone.
-
Yes to keeping Shrews in the league
Stöttley Crüe on
October 9, 2016 3:13 PM
-
For the record I will note that I nominated Sam, despite also liking him, because it seemed the degree of inactivity on his part suggested an inability due to time constraints/or lack of desire to play.
-
Shrews' activity could very well correspond with his lower finishes in that once he realized he wasn't contending for first- did the smart thing and sold his players he would ultimately cut. It didn't appear to work out as he did lose this season but again his low standing was likely explained by him trying to field a more competitive team by selling.
-
If it's helpful to anyone I just now ran numbers and Shrews does rank last out of the four relegation candidates in cumulative points and place finishes. Still I vote to keep because I like him and appreciate that he's very active and reliable to change/check his team. Another potential issue with that data is that we previously had no relegation policy in place and hence there was no reason not to get a higher standing if not first.
-
I vote keep Shrews. DK fair enough- I appreciate your honesty. And also get the argument against.
-
No one has voted to kick him out, yet. 2-0. One person private messaged me to nominate him. I'm fine with nominations and voting being anonymous, if people prefer. But they can also choose to make them public, as Shrews has requested.
Paul Dano on
October 9, 2016 2:51 AM
-
yes to keeping shrews. Who voted to kicking him out?
-
Yes to keeping Mr. Shrewsbury. Good kid, that one.
-
I abstain. I'm not voting in whether to keep me in a league and removes any tie possibilities. No worries.
-
You deserve a vote, Shrews. Go ahead. I assume you vote yes.
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 4:06 PM
-
There is no campaigning, if I'm out I'm out.
-
Considering the ramifications of the vote, I ask that the vote be a public vote. This should be pretty simple, Sam is out and Christian is isn't voting, and I'm not. So there are 9 votes, and I'm pretty sure I start down 3 votes.
-
Finally, please submit here or privately to me names of qualified (smart and willing) replacements for Sam (and Shrews if necessary). Once we know how many spots are available, we will vote to narrow the field if necessary. I want to have this finalized by Oct. 15, so please have any names to me by Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 11:59 PM, same deadline as the relegation vote.
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 3:24 PM
-
LOL
-
Shrews has been nominated by a league member for relegation. Feel free to argue your case here Shrews or campaign in back channels. Voting will be permitted for three days, closing at 11:59 PM PDT on Tuesday, Oct. 11. I will close the vote once the required yeses or nos have been reached, so please do not plan to be able to change your vote. As always, majority wins, and I will only vote to break a tie.
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 3:06 PM
-
Now, next item of business: Sam will not be continuing in the league of his own free will and choice. Godspeed, Sam, and have a good marriage. I trust she will admirably protect you against allegations of homosexuality throughout your long career.
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 3:00 PM
-
And for the record, DK, if Kris Bryant retired to become a missionary, I personally would support a similar compensation package. However, I would not propose one for Prince Fielder, as has been mentioned in this thread. Obviously very different scenarios, and not that hard to have a vote in cases of extreme misfortune, which skews the league's rewarding of good fantasy play.
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 2:59 PM
-
Ok to sum up, the motion carried, but Andrew heroically rejected the compensation package. I for one, will choose to compensate Andrew by throwing my $3 in arbitration on Jose Fernandez, and I strongly encourage everyone to do the same, though it will not be enforced.
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 2:57 PM
-
And for the record, unless I missed it, I don't believe anything like the Kris Bryant scenario has been responded to. The only response has been against players that retain value and are hurt for 1-2 years, which I at least partially agree with you on. I haven't seen any other response other than "this hardly ever happens" which really isn't a response.
-
@Andrew I wasn't calling you out specifically. And I do believe you that you're genuine here- I really do think you would vote the same way if it happened to me and I appreciate that. And I know you didn't even ask for this. And honestly, I probably would accept the compensation package if it were offered to me- and maybe even fight for it. But i honestly believe I would still think it senseless and emotionally driven, and be confused why it's a thing.
-
My point about empathy was not a cry for help or an assessment of your quality as a human being- lol it's fantasy baseball yes. I was simply saying if you would vote for your own team but not someone else's as I suspect some would then yes it has to do with your willingness to put yourself in the same position. This isn't the moral olympics- it was simply to call in to question your unwavering dedication to the ideological element of the debate in this situation.
-
And DK I'm so sorry about my emotional bullying- that's exactly what's been going on here!
-
Thanks again everyone for your consideration on this- please do whatever you want with my allocation. My team is still better than most of the naysayers but I'm sure that's not at all part of why they are naysayers!
-
It's not rocket science- it's easy to understand. But I don't want to hear when I kick anyone's ass that it's because I got $27 dollars extra. Such a relatively small amount anyway proportional to the complaining and rehashing of semantics. So let's be done with it 20 min before the votes are final and just be done with it.
-
for me to hear it ceaselessly and with the potential of more conversations/gripes/comparisons about this player big toe and this players retirement at age 35 that I would prefer not to receive the mandatory package.
-
Seriously I'm over these same conversations- it's been answered over and over again. Read the text that has been repeated. At this point even if the package is voted for - I'm no longer accepting the package proposed in entirety. Let everyone who thinks it's fair to give me compensation to do so. Allocate $3 to Fernandez if you do, for those who don't- don't. Numbers won't equal what they would based on the proposed package which was voted for- but at this point it's become more costly
-
Follow up on the Kris Bryant scenario: what if he retires to become a missionary?
-
As an aside, this conversation has, at times, bordered on emotional bullying. As if were supposed to feel bad for Andrew. Jose Fernandez died. That's a real loss. Andrew lost a fantasy player. Big difference. I honestly don't give that much of a damn if Andrew receives all that compensation. It continues to make zero sense, but whatever. But it's frankly ridiculous that this conversation is, in any way, connected with my empathy.
-
Serious question for the "for" party: if tomorrow Kris Bryant gets hit in the head and retires due to concussion, will his owner receive compensation? If not, why?
-
Did you guys hear that MLB is giving the Marlins 20 million dollars and their pick of three free agents to play on their team for free?
-
Nevermind I figured it out- that video lol
-
I don't know what GTBTP means lol
-
Team name is just for you Benjamin #MAGA
-
Haha Shrews I'm not suffering from grief thanks- and it's not personal. Haha it is no big deal. I am fine with however the vote goes, a vote I didn't ask for in fact! What is annoying is being nominated for compensation in this case and have to swallow the implications that I am rigging thing for myself or being greedy or have garbage ideas or whatever. I agree it is a game. I still like you. But do please send your lessons of logic my way!
-
#MAGA
-
haha so now I'm not showing empathy because a player on your fictional team died? I wouldn't ask for it or want it. It's a game, it sucks that it happened, and is any of this conversation about the reality that he died? Of course not. Glad to see logic is going strong.
-
Is it? What's the final vote? lol Even it it goes the way of compensation, I didn't win- I lost a player who died. Second player of mine now Shrews. Thanks for your great empathy and consideration- I am sure you would have argued as vehemently against your own compensation package and what's funny is that if it was yours I would argue for you in the very same case. :)
-
come on Andrew. It's over anyway, you win.
-
Deteriorating health and increased frequency/severity of injuries and the diminished performance as a result is actually one of the most common reasons baseball players retire.
-
Not interested in arguing this one, but it's hard to ignore in my inbox. Whatever. I'll accept rhetorical defeat. Do what you want. This will make it all right.
-
Fielder was a pretty low chance of probability considering the number of players that have been forced to retire due to injury
-
Hmm I just explained that it's not just about lost value. Again, it's also about the improbability of the causal event, severity in this case a cost of more than 1/6 of a total team budget and a lack of historical consensus for such events. Injuries are not as rare nor improbable, do not impact as adversely and come complete with a big long historical consensus. I got a player whose ear got bit off and was on DL for 2 months. Everyone's players blow out elbows.
-
Christian you should have just held on to Fielder and you could have had your arb wiped clean. Back issues cost him his career
-
The argument against apparently doesn't really make a difference though, as it's about lost value. So when a guy blows an arm/breaks a back/gets hit in the face and can't play because of concussions we'll play this game again
-
Ben your argument is garbage. Your new job has eroded your skills I'm afraid. I gave a clear reason for why I thought it was fair and I provided several days for debate and voting. But everything else from your analogy works. Oh wait, that was everything. :-(
Paul Dano on
October 8, 2016 12:07 AM
-
To me there are some easily discernible reasons that justify voting for or against compensation in this case. When an event both extremely severe and improbable as this causes a huge loss to a team do we compensate to maintain a portion the competitive thrust that existed before or do we not? You think not- and I can see that as a logical perspective just as I can the perspective that's in favor of compensation. Clearly it's not a "completely arbitrary reason" only known to Christian.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages