-
Hey y'all, just took over Curacao Gazelles and I'll be looking to go from worst to first. Looking forward to the season!
-
keeper deadline sunday night, make sure you get your cuts in.... and if anyone knows anyone who wants to pick up gazelles, or if you want to post the opening, please do.. would love to get an owner by the deadline
-
Agree - probably time to abandon the team and get a replacement before the keeper deadline.
-
Don’t know them and agree with the others
-
I think 4+ months is a more than reasonable amount of time to expect somebody to respond. I'd consider the team abandoned.
-
The time of courtesy and reasonableness for Curacao Gazelles long expired. I considered the team abandoned, and should be posted as No Owner, and new ownership advertised/sought. Aside, may I wish all a prosperous and healthy 2021.
-
As some of you may have noticed, Curacao Gazelles haven't arb'd paid dues or even logged in since august. I've got a few messages out to them (thru site and thru personal email). Does anyone know them personally and can reach out? What's a reasonable amount of time to expect to respond to an email before we abandon the team?
-
OK, the votes are in and Legal End of Season Rosters has won in a landslide! (actually, didn't vote/don't care won... but those who voted say keep it legal) That makes our 2nd league-specific rule, in addition to paying dues for upcoming season BEFORE making any offseason transactions. Which reminds me-- now would be a great time to get your 2021 dues in because the hot stove is warming up!
-
OK, didn't get a whole lot of votes, but so far-- legal at end of season is in the lead. Let's give till Sunday night for last votes, then whatever side is in the lead wins. Also, good job with everyone who's done their ARBs. If you're like me, and you haven't yet, you've got 7 days left!
-
Yes
-
Aye
-
OK, since no other comments, let's vote on the 'must have legal roster at season close rule' I think simple majority rule should work for this one....
-
Ok-- anyone else want to weigh in, or adjust the proposal? Let's give another day or 2 for comment, then put it up to a vote...
-
Yeah, that’s sensible
-
I think that on non-compliance the commissioner should not nullify acquisitions, but force cuts of the last acquisitions (including penalties) until the roster is valid. If not, I can still bid $100 on any auction in the last days to block others from acquiring players without consequences.
-
I don't know if we need a precisely worded rule, just a confirmation that all rosters must be legal at the end of the final day of the season. "Legal" being within the player limit and salary limit (including any loans made or received) for that roster. Any violators will be notified and given an opportunity (let's say 5 days?) to bring their roster into compliance. After that point, the commissioner may nullify prior acquisitions until the roster is legal.
-
ok, so not quite a unanimous vote to retroactively fix how we ended the offseason... so I think we should leave rosters as they are. would anyone like to come up with some language to propose our future rule? Is it that we need to be in compliance at the close of the season, or every day of the regular season? As co-commish, I have to admit I'm not sure I'm going to be able to check everyone's roster daily and punish those who haven't made a quick enough drop...
-
This is my first offseason playing Ottoneu. I'm not too familiar with all its workings, but I feel all teams should be on even ground with having a valid roster on the last day of the season. I'm not too sure what the current situation is, but could see how it could lead to teams stashing extra players heading into the offseason. So I guess I'd vote, yes. But for this weird season, I'm not too worried about it.
👹 Wendigos 👹 on
October 20, 2020 12:25 PM
-
no aggressions here, btw. It's a great league and I don't take disagreements on rules as any personal affront
-
OK, last call for votes, I'd like to get this settled soon so we can take out our aggressions on the arbitration field
-
And btw, I’m just straight dropping arenado if that’s going to be the new rule. I’m not making other cuts, because the bid was only predicated on the old rule that was in existence
-
I'm not creating confusion. The rule in existence was keep a valid roster or else your team cannot make any further lineup changes, bids, start auctions, etc. That's what happened and now you want to change it, which is fine, but if you want to do that, you have to deal with the other logical consequences
-
I understand that it is in your best interest to create as much confusion as possible, but this is really quite simple. The rule is to have a valid roster during the season. You won the auction, so you need to make cuts until your roster would have been valid at 23:59 the last day of the season. This works perfectly in other leagues. If somebody can't/won't make these cuts, the commish cuts the last additions until a roster would be valid. No invalidations, but cuts.
-
Not to mention what are we deciding on as a vote winner? Cause we’re only at 3-2 on votes so far and it strikes me that 3 votes out of 12 should not be sufficient to change a league rule (ESPECIALLY retroactively)
-
And if they do have to make further roster moves, do we all get a chance to try to pick up their cuts as we would have been able to do at the end of the season? How far down the line would we take this? This is why changing the rules retroactively is ridiculous
-
Additionally, how far would we go back to unwind a transaction? If my pickup of arenado is invalidated, does he just go to free agency? Or is he awarded to the second highest bidder (la fin du monde, in this case) for their bid? If the second bidder gets him, they would have been over the cap so do they have to make further roster moves to get their roster where it would have been legal at the end of the season?
-
A couple other rabbit hole questions here. Since this is targeted at myself and two other teams. Don’t other rosters also have to get “legal? Because all 3 of the teams voting yes are further over the cap than I am right this second
-
Yes
-
Yes
-
No
-
No
-
Voting yes. It seems simple to me, you picked up a $49 player on the last day and 10 days later a few of us were waiting for the rosters to become valid and started asking about it before we started arb. There isn't anything new or retroactive that I can see. Haven't seen an argument for invalid rosters yet. Seems telling that some are all about it starting next year without much resistance. Having extra players is either ok or it is not. No hard feelings either way though, lets move on.
-
i appreciate the spirited debate, leaguemates... time to vote-- please respond in this message board... we'll vote on future rule later, but this first vote is about this year... Yes- we should force teams to cut to get into end of season legal rosters... vs. No- no adjustments to rosters this year. I will abstain from voting as I am one of the 3 teams who ended the year with an invalid roster
-
What you're basically saying now is that the current penalty (not being able to make further moves during the season) is inadequate and you want to implement a new penalty system. Fine. I truly support that. Just not retroactively.
-
Because the penalty is already built into the game. It's like hack-a-shaq. Remember when everyone just fouled Shaq all the time? The other teams decided to just take the penalty that existed, which was having Shaq shoot free throws. Everyone eventually decided that was lame and changed the rule so anyone else could shoot free throws so teams had even less incentive to foul Shaq. They didn't go back and award the Lakers extra free throws in all the games that were already played, tho
-
I think it'd be best just to establish that your roster has to be in a valid state heading into the off-season starting next season. I believe forcing any roster changes at this point is unnecessary. It was an odd season, and I don't think any of those teams were trying to game the system.
-
It is not about time, it is that you can't proceed with any other business until you're valid. You don't have to cut the most recent pickup, you can cut anyone you want to become valid. And you're going to have to cut some players in the near future anyway. I can't figure out why you think it is ok to have a few extra players or extra cap space before we enter arbitration and then again before we start trading.
-
I think we all agree that is ok, so what we are now saying is that purposefully going over for a certain amount of time is what we want to prevent. So what we are proposing is essentially saying you can exceed the roster limit, but only for a certain amount of time, and if you exceed that time, we are going to do X. X being having the prior move negated or whatever. That's a fine rule and I support it. But it should only be applied after being clearly established and announced
-
That rule is impossibly vague. You are creating a new rule by adding an additional enforcement mechanism. For example, almost every team exceeds the salary cap at some point in the season by picking up a player that puts them over the cap or the maximum number of players, then cutting someone else shortly thereafter. There is no additional penalty for that team even though they violated the letter of the rule you cited by knowingly going over the cap/player limit.
-
So not creating a new rule. Just enforcing existing rules.
-
Rule I c states: At no time shall 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.
-
This is not creating a new rule. Rule I b states: If at any time during the season any team's cap room is not greater than or equal to 40 minus the number of players on that team's roster up to 40, that team is considered in an invalid state. In this circumstance, the team will be frozen until the issue is resolved. The owner will be forced to cut a player to resolve this issue, and will not be able to perform any other activities in the game, including editing and making auction bids.
-
If you want to create a rule that every roster must be valid at the end of the season or else...(or else what by the way? The last move is taken back? The commissioner forces you to get compliant?)...that's fine. But that would be creating a new rule and enforcement mechanism and you can't change rules retroactively or else it's fucking chaos.
-
You can't enforce that rule retroactively, however. In my case, Arenado went up for auction with like 2 days left in the season and I bid on him (along with like more than half of the league). My roster became invalid and I couldn't make any moves after that, so my penalty was to not be allowed to start any additional auctions or bid on any new auctions started by anyone else. That was the rule in existence in this league at the time.
-
I have no problem with a rule that every team must have a valid roster entering the offseason. In another league I'm in, we have a rule that every invalid roster must be made valid within 2 days or the commissioner negates the prior move that made a roster invalid.
-
Same here; every other league I am in requires a valid roster entering the off season. Non-compliant teams go into the off season with an unfair advantage. The rules are pretty clear and we should enforce them at all times.
-
Every other league I'm in you must have a valid roster on the last day. Don't see why we should allow some teams to go over the cap or allowed roster spots. The rules imply that a team shouldn't partake in any further business until a roster is valid.
-
On May 1, I complained about the same, and was ruled against. Interesting that the same team is again doing, at best, gaming the system. Rules, IMO, are clear, and that these teams should be made to follow the rules and have valid rosters. With that said, and fact that I am leaving after arbitration, my opinion is that enforcement should begin now. And, respectfully, I recuse myself from voting because I am not going forward. Again, thank you for the experience.
-
Feel free to argue your side in this forum if you feel strongly. Then let's vote!
-
... rather we've just allowed the site lock outs to do the enforcing. I propose we have a 2 part league vote: Part 1- should the 3 teams who ended with invalid lineups be forced to cut down now? Part 2- should we have active enforcement of the valid lineup rule moving forwards? Homer/Fin/I should abstain from part 1's vote. I feel part 1 should be unanimous to force a new change. All should be able to vote Part 2, for which simple majority rules.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages