-
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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 11:25 AM
-
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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 11:21 AM
-
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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 11:12 AM
-
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?
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 11:04 AM
-
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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 10:49 AM
-
...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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 10:30 AM
-
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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 10:21 AM
-
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.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 10:17 AM
-
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
-
The rules are the rules, DG. It's all there in black-and-white. You chose to go over the cap, and almost a day later you're still over the cap -- and hoping to rely on a trade that still hasn't happened as your "get out of jail free" card. Explain how does this situation does not give you an unfair advantage over the rest of us? If there have been other instances of people breaking the rules, it should've been flagged. I am not aware of any.
WAMCO Geckos on
May 12, 2023 10:15 AM
-
Item 4 (contin.)
In total, I am being forced to give up Jackson Chourio and Andrew Abbott for Nestor Cortes and Jose Altuve. You could say that's unfair, you're welcome to an opinion, but I identify and add prospects for the sole purpose of trading them. The owners of Nate Lowe, Corbin Carroll, Austin Riley, and Logan Gilbert can thank me for similar deals, and they probably did better than Nestor Cortes and his 5.16 xFIP.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:13 AM
-
Item 4 - Ethics
First off, I do not think my trade with Mike Mashers is unfair. It is only in this larger context that I would do it. I think it's savvy of Mashers to horde cap space during a rebuild. It is what I would do.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:11 AM
-
Item 3 (contin.)
If I felt this was going to be an issue (and I didn't, as I will cover later), I would have simply changed the order of operations. I would have set my deadline with Mashers 1 day before the end of the auction instead of one hour before it, and a deal would have been reached. I simply was unaware people would interpret the rules this way. Simply put: because I thought I had more time to negotiate, I took it.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:05 AM
-
My 2 cents —
I don’t think anything nefarious was going, as such, I wasn’t aware of the issue around having your team always compliant until WAMCO pointed it out. So DG (and Mashers), there’s no shade here. And certainly no vitriol intended. Enjoy this league a lot.
RE: veto. I think this is what the veto is for, no? When you see a trade that you think is unfair. For me, it’s not so much the ineligibility of the squad that caught my as as it was the combo of that + ec
Duran Duran on
May 12, 2023 10:04 AM
-
Item 3 (contin.)
Under those assumptions, I would have simply waited to nominate Altuve until after the trade terms were agreed upon, and none of this would have happened. We have never seen a trade not go through, and this trade was negotiated for days in good faith, so I had no reason to think it would be vetoed. On top of this, I gave Mashers a deadline to complete the deal with the conclusion of the Altuve auction in mind.
Diamond Girl on
May 12, 2023 10:03 AM
-
Item 3 - The Move
For the sake of argument, let's assume the trade is fair, and let's assume that I was aware people would be upset about this. I can say with certainty that I wouldn't have tried anything that would drum up this much vitriol, so let's also assume I approach this whole thing differently. The outcome would not have changed. This is key: I was the one who nominated Altuve.
-
Item 2 - The Rules
Obviously, we've seen people go over the cap before and make cuts shortly after to get back under it, so I didn't see any difference in this instance. People "willingly and knowingly" go above the cap in order to add someone and make a cut later. I see names in red font on the standings all the time. Sometimes those names are in red for days. From my perspective, this wasn't going to be different. I didn't even view it as a loophole let alone a brea
-
Item 1 (contin.)
And from a philosophical perspective, I would never veto someone's trade on the basis of it being "uneven". Vetoes are to police cheating. As someone who would not have traded Chourio for Cortes and $17 under any other circumstance, I think it's "not in the spirit of the league" to decide what trades are worthy. I think Chourio is really good, and have used top prospects like him in the past to get blue chippers like Gerritt Cole at the deadli
-
Item 1 - The Trade
Mashers and I negotiated for days on that deal. Literally. You raise a good question there 7th Inning Streakers, and I have no problem with Mashers' strategy. He came into this year with the cap space to essentially "buy" young players off teams in need of cap relief. If you want to rebuild, this seems like a great approach. I would not have done this trade under any other circumstances.
-
Wow, I have a lot to respond to! First of all, I have no intention of being untoward. I think it's super unfair to say I'm making a mockery of the rules. I'm one of the most active and passionate players in this league and consider it to be my favorite fantasy league in any sport, period. I want to win and I want to win fair and square. I figure I need to respond to a few items here.
-
I'll just put this out there again: "At no time shall a team willingly go over roster and salary cap limits." DG is currently "willingly" over the salary cap limit -- and was so the moment he signed Altuve 15 hours ago. Two minutes later, he cut Miranda. But he's so far declined to cut anyone further to make his roster legal. The rules are explicit. He chose to sign Altuve willingly and that had consequences (as does any winning FA bid). Why should he get the advantage of kee
-
It's a genuine question and relies on an interpretation of the rules maybe, just my two cents. perhaps it comes down to whether the trade is vetoed or not.
-
To be totally transparent, I offered Mashers a group of young players/prospects for current MLBers because they appear to be building.
Still, I think it's the 2 items together that DeGrims and WAMCO point out — the trade & the auction. should you be able to lean on a team that’s struggling via a deeply uneven trade to prop up your budget so you can afford w/e you want at auction? If a team is willing to give that many $$ for a dice roll, is that in the spirit and fair to our base c
-
No one ever said he was too busy, that was a hypothetical example in counter to your literal reading of the rule and the arbitrary lines you are attempting to draw. What I am saying is he had a clear plan to make his roster compliant, and he has at least one person that doesn't think he was attempting to do anything nefarious. Stating definitively that he attempted to make a mockery of the rules seems a bit unnecessarily aggressive.
-
DG cut Jose Miranda two minutes after the Altuve signing went through. So he wasn't too busy to make cuts.
-
Seems I'm in the minority here, and it's totally fine with me if we decide this is illegal, just sharing my two cents. I at least think this boils down to simple differences in interpretation of the rules, not an effort to make a "mockery" of them.
-
Well if you take that rule literally, we all willingly go over roster/salary cap limits. Why is a cut after a pick up so much more morally acceptable than trading for cap space ahead of time? Why is 23 hours such an unacceptable time? I do think people usually make timely cuts, but it's not always immediate, you could just be busy. These lines seem somewhat arbitrary to me.
-
The rules don't say: "you have 23 hours to make your roster legal after a trade processes." It's "at no time," "willingly" and "knowingly." Everyone has always abided by the rules and made immediate moves. There is no precedent and this has nothing to do with creativity. It's entirely to do with an even playing field. We shouldn't let one owner make a mockery of the rules for their own gain. (For the record, I did not bid on Altuve.)
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages