-
Panda🐼🛡Shield's trade block has been updated!
-
I'm a bad manager and he likes to take my money, but I'm trying to build something. and having rules that make me release hansen doesn't help. I can't not say my peace, because it's how i feel and I've been in this league since year one. I'll play by the rules, but I don't like it. ;)
-
just for the record. waiving hansen was a bummer. I don't agree that having great 18 great prospects is a bad strategy for a rebuild. it's exactly how benintendi is in the running. he did it and was patient. I' the one who has the money to sign the trout and betts (example) or whomever else is available to put around a nucleus of young players. it's exactly how beni did it. it may take 2 years but it's a strategy none the less. and having to replace 10 day dl-ers makes it hard. YJ can say ..
-
For anybody wondering, FB agreed to take Narvaez back at his $1 salary. He'll make the corresponding cut. Now back to more important things, like trying to fend everybody off for the next two months. I'm still haunted by WAR's epic Aug/Sep that snatched the title from me the year before last
-
Issue is taken care of with commish. I’m getting a catcher. I will now adhere to the DL replacement rules for the 22 ML players. Moving on
-
Okay. Anyone else? Do you guys feel like I need to pick up a catcher?
-
Yeah, no, you don't get to decide when I can and cannot join a debate. Winning with grace was when I calmly called out a perceived rule violation, submitted publicly for a democratic league decision, and went out of my way to call you a "good leaguemate" in the original post. When you decided to throw a hissy fit and tell me to mind my own team, you were the deserved recipient of a "scoreboard." Your roster's still illegal
Yeah Jeets! on
July 29, 2018 11:43 AM
-
I’m not hoarding DL players. Most of my prospects are on the cusp of being called up or have been up and down. I’ve heard an argument about whether DL player should count or not. Have we decided I need to replace Ramos? I don’t want to hear from YJ anymore. He’s made it clear how amazing he is. Now can someone else answer that question for me? Do I need to replace Ramos from the 10 day DL?
So much for winning with grace. Jeez. “I take your money” - goodness! Really?
-
Only one person pissed off here. Anyway, I appreciate the commish’s even handed approach. Oh look, ramos’ rehab assignment got delayed! Shocker
Yeah Jeets! on
July 29, 2018 8:27 AM
-
(3/3) Hopefully, we can all debate league rules and express opinions without pissing each other off (although the BOPS/YJ rivalry last year was entertaining). This is a game, so let's have fun with it. It's difficult to find complete consensus on these things so it requires us to have some flexibility. FBs I hope you stay. I dont think the rule that requires you to exchange your 18th favorite prospect for an active major leaguer is going to limit your rebuild efforts.
-
(2/3) From a commish perspective, I think YJ 's points are valid bc if anybody does view hoarding prospects and DL spots as an unfair advantage, then it's important to have a clearly defined rule on and the points YJ made are technically correct as to why DL spots should not count. It's ultimately a judgment call and the league voted in favor of this clarification.
-
(1/2) As commish, Im wearing two hats- one with my personal opinions and the other administering the will and best interests of the league. My personal view is basically inline with Winterfell and 5IS- that strictly defining the rule isn't that big a deal bc anybody that's concerned about owning more than 18 prospects is just shooting themselves in the foot anyway.
-
Anyway, rule was clearly, transparently decided, so the matter is clearly settled
Yeah Jeets! on
July 28, 2018 11:27 AM
-
Which is good for the top of the league, we well as the bottom, because it keeps the waiver wire fresh, so teams that are competing, like mine or BOI, have limited waiver wire options. Therefore there’s more incentive for trading and other fun
Yeah Jeets! on
July 28, 2018 11:26 AM
-
To shadows, the reason I think it matters is that you can hang onto valuable injured players AND prospects. When DL players don’t count toward the 22, well, you have to cut a prospect or an injured player. Limits hoarding
Yeah Jeets! on
July 28, 2018 11:21 AM
-
Go pound sand, FunBags. I’ve been nothing but respectful till you decided to be an ass. I respectfully called out a rule violation. I’ve enjoyed taking your money every year of this league. I mean I guess every year except the one time I finished out of the money. So please stay in this league and continue losing. In the meantime, play by the rules
Yeah Jeets! on
July 28, 2018 11:17 AM
-
This question may muddy the waters...but who cares if someone has 22 injured major league players? Will someone building a team that way ever actually compete? If they are abiding by the rule I don’t care if they are all pitchers. It just limits the number of prospects a team can have.
-
and mind your owning F-ing team YJ! I'm getting pretty sick of you about now. Again, if YJ wants me to replace 10-day Dl players and have to cut prospects I'm gone. I'm not gonna do it. Maybe that's what he wants. I'm trying to build a team here! would you rather have an owner that fields a crappy major league team or build for the future? I have 23 major league players. Now go concentrate on your own team, YJ.
-
from boi : "I think the short-term injury to Ramos is fine to count as a catcher, which puts you just the one MLB player short. Thanks for addressing it FBs." i would have had to release a prospect for that catcher when i have ramos. listen guys. I feel like I have achieved YJ goal for having 22 ML players. I now have 23. Ramos is about to go on rehab and he has been my catcher all year.
-
i thought we decided that ramos was my catcher?
-
FBs can you help us understand what just happened? You bid $7 on Narvaez, got him for $1, he made you legal and then you cut him without a replacement, thus making your roster illegal again. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I'm scratching my head on this one.
-
Hmmm, cutting narvaez doesn’t solve the problem...
Yeah Jeets! on
July 27, 2018 5:46 PM
-
Alright, I think it's been a sufficient amount of time for those to add their two cents. I believe we're at YJ, WAR, WD, BOI, and 5IS (I think) in favor of DL not counting towards the 22 and BFD and FB against. Motion for DL'd players not counting against the 22 MLB minimum passes 5-2.
-
And, yeah, bad on me for not researching the rule Vb thing a long time ago. Oh well.
-
Doesn't change what I said about the 10-day DL issue. Let's not over-lawyer this.
-
Okay, forget what I said about Rule Vb. Was trying to research in the community pages, but was getting an Ubuntu error message. Error has been resolved and I just found a posting by @Niv that the system will assume you bid $1 if you nominate a player but don't bid. Personally, I think the auction results page should show the $1 bid, but that's another issue.
-
sounds like it’s still 4-2-1 for now. PS - on the bidding portion, Ive noticed it doesn’t always reflect a bid if you don’t input one, but I can assure you, I’ve started a number of auctions and not bothered to put a bid in cause I only wanted to bid $1 and won. It’s in there.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:54 PM
-
Btw, this totally ruined my plan of hoarding 10-day DL guys in September. Not going to slip that past anybody now.
-
I just think excluding 10-day DL players from the required 22 is a solution in search of a problem. If somebody starts hoarding 10-day DL players, I might be persuaded otherwise.
-
It’s impossible to violate that rule
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:48 PM
-
If you nominate a player, you automatically bid $1. Even if it’s not reflected in the results. If you nominate someone and no one else bids on them, you get them for $1, or whatever the minimum price is
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:47 PM
-
Or 22 position players and zero pitchers or whatever. That would make you incapable of “filling a starting lineup”
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:45 PM
-
...May 8 (Marco Gonzales), and on. I've let these slide because this is, in the end, a game. A serious game, but still just a game. I find it hard to believe that others didn't notice these violations as well. So if we can let those slip, why not let the 10-day DL issue (which arguably is not clear from the rules) slip? And if we don't let the 10-day DL thing slip, what are we going to do about the past infractions of rule Vb?
-
Yeah, the 22 is C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, MI, 5 OF, Util, 5 SP, and 5 RP. It can’t be 22 outfielders
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:42 PM
-
If we're going to nail FB on rule 1a because of a few 10-day DL guys, then we should starting enforcing some of the other rules that we've let slide. For example, I've noticed many violations of rule Vb. The last sentence of the rule states "The team that nominated the player is obligated to bid on the player." Couldn't be any more clear. Yet there have been numerous instances where owners didn't follow the rule: April 23 (Lourdes Gurriel), May 5 (Jake Arrieta), May 6 (Rougned Odor)...
-
... pick up a 3B in such a situation. And what if the owner doesn't have any cap space? I take YJ's point about owners hoarding 10-day DL guys towards the end of the season when rosters expand, but do we have any evidence that owners are doing that? As it is, FB has just two 10-day DL guys. If there really is a concern about hoarding at the end of the season, why not make the rule that 10-day DL guys don't count toward the 22 from September 1 forward?
-
What if an owner has more than 22 healthy MLB players but only 1 MLB 3B, and that 3B gets a minor nick and goes on the 10-day DL. Is the rule going to be that the owner immediately has to pick up a replacement 3B for the week or so that the main 3B is expected to be out? I understand that 10-day DL stints sometimes turn into 30-day stints, but sometimes you know the guy is only going to be out a week or so. Seems like an unnecessarily strict reading of the rules to force the owner to ...
-
Don't have super strong feelings about this, but if asked to vote, I agree with WAR & Jeets that 10-day DL guys should not count towards the 22 MLB players "who can fill a starting position."
-
I agree with Jeets, I think 10 DL players shouldn't count as part of the 22.
SchanuWow! on
July 26, 2018 7:41 PM
-
Right, same. My best count was You and I in favor of the proposition that DL players don't count, Shadows seemingly also in favor, and BFD and FB against, and Benintending not caring. Which would put it (if I'm not misrepresenting Shadows position) at 3-2-1 that DL players do NOT count towards the 22 man, MLB roster if no one else chips in.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 2:52 PM
-
My bad, I somehow read BFD's comment last night as being for counting it. My mistake. I get the sense we're not going to hear from many other managers that haven't already chimed in, which is why I was prepared to move forward. If you want to leave the dialogue open for longer that's fine too.
-
I’m always a fan of league democracy, and of course, I abide by the league’s collective decisions. The dude abides. I don’t know if we want to set up an anonymous poll or just do it out here in the open. I guess the simplest way to state question is: “Should players on the disabled list count toward the 22 man major league roster?” Which would mean my vote, obviously, would be no, whereas BFD would be yes
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 12:19 PM
-
Should we vote on what the exact rule is going forward? Doesn't seem like we have a consensus one way or the other
-
FBs, I think BFD and YJ have made valid points in not counting DL spots toward the 22 minimum. Since we’re just adopting this clarification, I think you should get a little more time to get your catcher situation in order. I’ll set a deadline of the end of the month (7/31). Does this seem reasonable to you? Thanks
-
I'm just saying that it completely defeats the purpose of the rule. Especially late in the season where there will be a lot of players hitting the DL and teams might not switch them over to the 60 day DL after rosters expand because there's no need to do so (even though they know the player won't play again).
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:08 AM
-
If DL players count, we might as well not have the rule. The purpose is to dis-incentivize hoarding and using DL players toward the 22 has the exact opposite effect. Look how it plays out. FB can stash Ramos, make no attempt fill his catcher position with someone "capable of filling a starting lineup" and then he keeps both Ramos and a prospect. That's not a personal criticism of your strategy FB, it's perfectly rational for you.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 26, 2018 9:07 AM
-
Okay. Some typos. "There" for "their" and other mistakes. You get the gist.
-
Plus, the team that holds on to the 10-day DL player instead of picking up a replacement doesn't gain much. They can't pick up a minor leaguer and they don't accrue points at the DL-position. I just don't think it upsets the competitive balance of the league to allow a 10-day DL player to count toward the starting lineup requirement/22 player requirement.
-
...starting lineup with 60-day DL players and use the extra roster spots to horde minor leaguers. Also, bad luck happens, and I don't think an owner should be forced to add somebody when there only player at a position goes on the 10-day DL. In real life, a team could deal with this by playing somebody out of position. They wouldn't necessarily go out and by another player at the same position. Of course, we can't do that in Ottoneu because we're bound by position eligibility.
-
I would count players on the 10-day DL towards the 22 requirement. Rule 1a says you should maintain a roster of 22 major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup. Nothing in Rule 1e, which describes the starting lineup requirements, indicates that a player on the DL is ineligible to fill a position. That said, I would differentiate between players on the 10-day DL and the 60-day DL, which comes with an extra roster slot. IMO, it would be against the spirit of the game to fill a ...
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages