-
Hi all,
This is quite the wall of text to walk back into. I appreciate everyone here who jumped in on the debate. While many of us disagree, I do find it encouraging that we have so many people who are invested in the league.
Now, while the manner in which DG manipulated their roster raised some red flags in my head when it was initially pointed out to me, I took the time to consult with some incredibly seasoned Ottoneu commissioners re: the series of moves.
-
On a lighter note, I've gotta give Nevermind props for the use of the word 'pedantic'. That was pretty impressive; I'm going to try to drop it at work next week, lol.
-
Everyone has said their piece. Some people disagree with you, including me. You don't need to question my honor or imply I don't like doing the right thing. We have different opinions about what went down. I don't think what I did was wrong or dishonorable, and I'm not going to make this personal or dogmatic to make my point.
This league is about having fun. The draft is the highlight of my year. Heck, I've even had fun with this discussion today. Let's keep it that way, yeah?
-
I thought Ottoneu was about baseball knowledge — and ultimately having fun. A $600 top prize on $100 entry fee isn’t exactly life-changing! So call me old-fashioned, but I still believe in doing the right thing and a sense of honor. Even if you don’t buy into such things, there’s a difference between “gaming the system” and blatant rule-breaking. The second Miranda was dropped but no one else was, this was a case of “knowingly” breaking them. How is that acceptable? Anyone?
-
I think Diamond was knowingly trying to gain an advantage and game the system. However, aren’t we all? I’m not sure that’s cheating. This is America, you have to find those loop holes to gain financial advantage lol!
-
As far as Altuve, I had the second highest bid. $1 less than what I had available plus the money I would gain in cutting Seranthony, which would have been my corresponding cut. I would have knowingly gone over the salary cap, however I had a roster cut ready to go if I won the bid that would have put me under the cap. I think making the bid on Altuve without any definitive way to get under the cap besides a trade straddles the line of what is fair play.
-
Okay wow, I’m finally caught up on the dialogue. My opinion on this trade and every trade is as long as there isn’t collusion, do what you want. If you want to trade Acuna for a loogy, that’s on you. In a keeper league with salary cap, you are going to have some uneven trades
-
Thanks for the feedback deGrims.
And I'm going to echo 7th Inning's comment... no matter what side of these two issues you fall on, it is great to see soo many engaged team owners. The league is fun (would be better for me if I could figure out a better strategy, lol), so lets keep this rolling...
Owners, I still have $67 cash and some tradable assets. If you've got a highly touted MiLB prospect or even young MLBer, lets talk!
-
Man, I wish I could have that one back. Wish y'all had vetoed that one for me.
-
For context, I sent DG $4 for Francisco Alverez last year. Markets change, etc.
And thoughts & prayers to the commish having to read through all this and make a call!
The deGrims on
May 12, 2023 2:12 PM
-
Mashers, no issue here with the way you’re building your team. You've got some nice pieces. The veto was based on my read of this particular trade and the context of it. Not arguing fwiw, just explaining my rational.
The deGrims on
May 12, 2023 2:00 PM
-
Dear Commissioner,
On behalf of the league, I sincerely apologize for all the posts we left you to read.
Best,
Diamond "DG" Girl
-
For the record, I think the question of “should DG have been required to make additional cuts to make his roster legal at some point before the trade kicked in 23 hours after the successful Altuve bid / are DG’s actions here in line with spirit of the rules, fair play and how we want this league to be?” is an entirely different one to “is the trade too lopsided and veto-worthy?” And I would argue that we should be focusing on that first question.
-
Honestly been great to see the discussion & all the perspectives. The passionate responses make clear that everyone cares deeply about the league.
Don't agree on all points. I think vetoes should be used when trades appear really uneven. It's not a slight. Everyone can use their own judgment. That's why we're asked to approve/veto & getting a majority is a tall order. Also, the order of operations should be respected.
I'm interested to hear the commish. Really do thin
-
I don't see trading away a #3 type SP who is not performing well (4.74 ERA, 4.41 FIP) and a loan (adding high ceiling MiLB players, via loans and whatnot, was my strategy) for a top 5 prospect as an issue. I've got the free money. I don't need Cortez and his 2 wins. From my perspective, this is exactly what I should be doing to rebuild.
Anyone can disagree with the trade, thats their right, but to VETO it.... I just don't see it. Disappointing. Looking forward to commish.
-
Arthurian, I'm in the same boat too, but to say my team is underperforming may actually be too generous of a statement. My team is horrible, lol. Fortunately, I made a trade which, imo, should help me going forward. Unfortunately, I've got at least 1 VETO against my RIGHT to build my team the way I see fit.
-
Yeah. I definitely don't think anyone intended to skirt rules or misinterpret, either. I would say something similar about a situation where someone was about to get put on the 60 IL and I had just won an auction that put me over roster spots, I think I would have to cut someone to make my roster legal. I don't think it's fair to just wait a couple days until the person gets 60 ILed. But it's open to interpretation. Agree with Nevermind that the real issue here is our underperforming teams. :)
-
Also, I love playing in this league too (although my team is absolute dog water this year and I feel like I have no goddamn clue what I'm doing anymore) so I hope an edge case like this isn't something we focus too hard on and can move on amicably!
-
He made a move to adjust for the cap change, it just hasn’t processed yet. Simple as that in my mind. Strategically trying to win and going against the spirit seem to be divided by a very thin line, and at this point I agree it's up to the commissioner.
-
Other than my joke answer of giving me back Altuve, I don't really know how to proceed from here, and as the commish of another ottoneu league, I wish our commish luck and success in finding a path people are happy with. :)
-
unfairly. Do I think the current trade is worth veto by my personal guidelines? No. Do I think our commish has the weight of the crown and can make that call? Sure. If enough of us disagreed with it, then we would ask him to resign as commish, I suppose. But ultimately, as it stands, I think it is his call. Again, I wouldn't personally veto it, though.
I think there's a lot of gray area, but I still agree with WAMCO on most procedural points. I'm just giving my thoughts, though.
-
Look, I am the one who cut Altuve. Just put him back on my roster and I'll make cuts to get right. :D
My interpretation of the rules is that doing what DG did is against the spirit. I think order of operations very much does matter. DG has said that was the plan, but doesn't agree it's against the spirit. Everyone can weigh in and the commish can rule.
I lean toward vetoes being -mostly- for collusion. I do think there is room for protection from trades that alter the
-
I'm of the school of thought that the rule is there to prevent abuse by hoarding prospects (also mentioned above), and the fact that the game itself is programmed to allow for this is clear that it's within the logic of Ottoneu.
-
You also say that "Everyone has always abided by the rules and made immediate moves."
That just can't be true (as has been mentioned). If everyone abided by the rules as they were written, we would never allow anyone to bid for a player knowing it would put them over the cap space.
-
You bid what you have or have a plan to cut accordingly."
It seems like you are being overly pedantic about the wording of the rule, while simultaneously saying that you can't break the rule, BUT it's ok to break the rule if you follow an unwritten rule that you cut the player "immediately."
-
Here are my two cents: earlier Wamco wrote the following:
"I don't see any wiggle room in the rules: "At no time shall a team willingly go over roster and salary cap limits." There is no disputing that DG willingly did this by placing a bid for Altuve that involved more money than he had available. In the five years of this league, has there ever been an example where someone who put in a bid for a player didn't IMMEDIATELY make cuts? I don't recall one.
-
“At no time” leaves no room for exception, WAMCO. Please do not bid on anyone without cutting someone prior, that would be a mockery of the rules.
-
The veto aspect is interesting. My view of veto was that it was based on perception of the trade and whether it was fair or not. Typically vetoes don't occur because those perceptions vary, but my approach has always been closer to the DeGrims in all leagues that I've played in.
I think we can acknowledge that we all enjoy the league. Don't think anyone is trying to malign anyone, but sharing their concerns. Tone can often get lost in text. If we were all having a beer, this may fe
-
My roster is currently legal. Unlike DG’s. As has been the case for almost a day now. Please let’s not forget that’s what we’re really talking about here.
-
Yes, if we are going to be literal about "at no time", I expect you to make cuts before you place any future bids. Your roster is full after all.
-
“At no time” does not feel like a statement where there is any room for interpretation, KK. I honestly don’t understand how that phrase could be perceived as not having clear intent. In any case, I’ve expressed my point of view and I look forward to the thoughts of others.
-
I wouldn't appreciate trying to earnestly explain my thought process to the league and being called ridiculous and non-sensical, and it seems Diamond Girl didn't appreciate the use of the word mockery either. Even though I disagree with your interpretation of this rule I understand it, and respect your opinion. Let's just agree to disagree and let the commissioner decide, that's what we have him for!
-
Also agree with the cheating-only veto philosophy, no one in this league needs protection from perceived unfair trades. But also agreed that deGrims or whoever can use their vetoes however they see fit!
-
There has been no name-calling whatsoever and I’m very happy to just stick to facts, KK. But I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with pointing out when an explanation makes absolutely no sense. And no one was “forced above” the salary cap here as DG claimed. He made a decision that put him above the salary cap and now doesn’t want to take the steps that would stop him from having an illegal roster.
-
I think "clearly the intent of the rule in question" is a subjective statement, because as I have made clear, I do not agree with you. I think it is more than reasonable that once Diamond Girl made a trade that gave him a substantial amount of cap flexibility, he went ahead and used that cap flexibility. You have made it very clear you disagree, and that is fine, but other people are allowed to have different opinions on the matter.
-
The difference, KK, is that as far as I’m aware the rest of us have always made necessary cuts straight away after a successful FA bid — ie. at next log-in — which is clearly the intent of the rule in question. We don’t make one minor cut that still leaves our roster illegal and then wait 23 more hours to finish it off. Do you really think that is a reasonable interpretation of how that rule was written / intended?
-
Everything you are saying beyond this is your own interpretation of the intent behind the written rule. You are entitled to that, and we all respect it, but I think you're arguing in bad faith when you act like Diamond Girl has broken an unambiguous rule, based on how we've played up to this point. And I'd appreciate if we could all be a little more civil about this, using words like "ridiculous" and "mockery" is practically name calling. Saying in all due respect does not
-
Where you're losing me WAMCO, if we are going to insist on taking this literally, is what the difference is here between this and what happens in this league every day? When someone goes over the cap and immediately cuts someone, they are still "knowingly and willingly" going over salary cap limits. Where in the rules is there a time limit on remediation? Where in the rules does it say cutting after the fact is acceptable and making a trade beforehand with clear forethought is not?
-
It's not that I disagree with you, DG. It's that you chose not to abide by the rules by bidding on someone you couldn't afford and are refusing to fix it. "At no time shall a team willingly go over roster and salary cap limits." It is a fact that this is occurred. "If a team knowingly does this, they will face penalties at the discretion of their league's commissioner." I'm sure Jordan will weigh in in due course, but again it is a fact you knowingly did this.
-
...concerned.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:46 AM
-
Item 6 (contin.)
WAMCO - As I've laid out, I do not see the rules as black and white. If they were, I would argue that every team who has ever gone above the cap at any point should be penalized. I don’t view it as an unfair advantage at all. I certainly am not going to cut Altuve because you disagree with me. Like I said, I would and could have made this work within your interpretation of the rules had I known them. Cutting him now gives me an unfair disadvantage as far as I’m
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:43 AM
-
... respecting that every owner has their own strategy, their own evaluation techniques, etc, I don't see it as my place to tell someone else how to manage their team.
-
Item 6 - Responses
degrims - I can't tell you how to use your vetoes and that's fine. I guess that's just how I've used them in the past. We've seen a lot of trades I've considered to be uneven and never vetoed on that basis. To each his own.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:35 AM
-
I'm not sure I need to dig into the merits of the trade, but DG summed up my approach rather well, but I'd like to say that I am really disappointed a fellow owner would veto ANY trade unless there is the suspicion of collusion or similar. I've seen plenty of trades go through that I thought had a clear winner and loser, trades where I couldn't understand the logic of the losers side of it, however...
-
It's everyone's responsibility to read and understand the rules, DG. And with all due respect, it's ridiculous to suggest that "you did your best to stay within those limits," as if that was the case you'd just make the cuts now (as we approach 21 hours since your successful FA bid) and this conversation would be over. You also weren't "forced above those limits." You chose to pursue a player you didn't have the budget space for. Cutting players now solves that problem.
-
Item 5 - Conclusion
I don't think I broke any rules. I don't speak or think in absolutes, so I understand WAMCO's logic, but respectfully disagree with it. The trade is fair, the move would have happened anyway, and to say I'm making a mockery of the rules or implying that I'm cheating is unfair. I love this league and I love fair play.
I just wanted to share my side of this and squash any slights against my character. I'm at the mercy of the league and the commis
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:25 AM
-
PS. Perhaps "mockery" wasn't the best word. I apologize for that. But I do struggle to see how anyone who has read the rules can see this situation as anything that should be allowed.
-
Item 4 (contin.)
Everything move I made evidenced an understanding of the cap and roster limits. I did my best to stay within those limits, and was forced above those limits momentarily. If I felt this was a breach of the rules, I wouldn't have cut Miranda or responded to WAMCO's post. I was operating in good faith and continue to do so.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:20 AM
-
Easy solution: drop Altuve to make your roster legal again. What happens after your team is legal and the trade goes through is your business, of course.
-
Item 4 (contin.)
Most importantly: I did not intend to make a mockery of the rules. I interpreted them differently. "At no time shall a team willingly go over roster and salary cap limits." By my logic, I was not over the roster and salary cap limits, as I had already made the moves necessary to address the issue. I was over them, yes, but only because the trade wasn't through - i.e. I was "unwillingly" over the limit.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:17 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages