-
My opinion has been made. I would say get Niv involved if you’re not happy because it’s not as straightforward as “get legal”. The system has been abused historically (not just for vacations - spring training workarounds and other circumstances), Pratt sunk 100$ this year, obviously not anticipating the league would get this aggravated. If it disbands he’s given us all a free chance at his money. Some punishment has already been made, trying to find a happy middle and lock in a future rule.
BeachBoys on
July 29, 2020 8:58 PM
-
Literally not mad at all. Im sitting here laughing at you
-
Right. Simple fix, follow the rules bro. Sorry you're mad though
-
You guys are so pathetic. You call everything collusion because youre so fucking shitty at the game you rationalize it by pretending there is collusion and that's why you can't compete. Also joe buck yourself said me and larry Walker were colluding. I must be colluding with everyone!!
-
Get Pratt legal or get Niv involved please. I'll happily allow 48 hours.
-
I'm not attempting to strategically hoard players at the moment, but we may as well use this innocent example to set the terms moving forward so someone doesn't win 20 auctions before seasons end to sit on trade bait and maximize chance of windfall type moves. We either acknowledge and allow this, giving us all a chance to out bid said player. Or we outright deny it, and force cuts in reverse order as they were added to maintain legal standing after a certain amount of time.
-
Matt, you do not overrule Otto rules. This is indeed a 'clown' decision. You can't permit a league member to override clearly defined standards. You also did not "raise it." It was raised and you asked for discussion. Also, this league has already lost a quality member (JBY) due to your suspected collusion with Pratt. For what it's worth, this was my response to your raised issue:
-
Jesus, you're a bunch of clowns. "A measure of good faith?" What good faith? That was a completely trashy, classless thing to do, and it sure as sh!t wasn't done in good faith in the first place. This never should have been something that needed addressing. I thought people that are willing to shell out the $ and commit to this format wouldn't stoop to something like that. I guess when you've already won once, any shred of integrity you had in the first place goes out the window.
-
MAKE OTTONEU GREAT AGAIN ⚾️🏆⚾️
Sox on
July 29, 2020 8:32 PM
-
All, I’ve going back and forth on this. As a league we should have regulated back in March for this specific scenario when I raised it. Pratt cut 10 players as a measure of good faith (you basically know 10 players on his keeper list), I don’t plan on further punishment. Anyone can match that with their roster for this year. When the season starts we will implement the draconian 3 days to fix or I will cut the last picked up player rule, if Ottoneu invalidates.
BeachBoys on
July 29, 2020 8:14 PM
-
I'd okay ignoring cap penalty on 17 cuts to get a fully valid roster without additional harms for the error
-
I'd also argue that you need to be at/under your cap of $179. If we're going to regulate team sizes, need to also regulate team cap as well. I think we'd all probably be ok with you not taking cap penalties for those you drop now, but you'll still need to cut $29 worth of roster.
-
And I'm willing to do what the commisioner thinks is right. He asked me if I'd be willing to drop some players and I said I would
-
We also aren't proposing to change the rules mid-season. The rules pretty clearly state that an offending team faces penalties "at the discretion of the commissioner". Last time we discussed it. Determined it wasn't an issue, so no penalties were assessed. Clearly this time is different.
-
The teams who took advantage before were never doing so to hoard players. They were doing it on a scale of 2 maybe 3 players for a very short duration and it was generally injury related, Covid related, etc. Was it against the rules? yes. Was it within the spirit of the game? I'd argue yes. It never adversely effected the league. What you're doing is hoarding players for an entire season. It's kinda ridiculous that you think this is ok.
-
Lmao so now everyone was on vacation
-
There is nothing arbitrary about it. What you're doing is not the same as someone being on vacation for a week or whatever. Get off it, I don't see how this is a compromise? Follow the rules or GTFO
-
There is no chance im dropping everyone. After watching people abuse this rule for 2+ years, its not going to start being arbitrarily enforced once i start doing it.
-
IMO 10 over 40 is still too many.
-
I understand others have taken advantage of having 40+ in the past, but if we're going down the road of enforcing this and we're going to force Pratt to drop any players at all, he needs to drop 17 to get to 40. Unless we can come to a consensus as to what # of roster spots over 40 is acceptable to everyone, we need to abide by the 40 max. That sets the precedent for all teams moving forward. We need to determine what an acceptable timeframe is for a team to get back to 40 after acquisitions.
-
Yeam I'm willing to drop 7 players
-
Pratt, are you willing to drop some people out of good faith? We need to make explicit penalties for this type of behavior , which we have not voted on as of this time.
BeachBoys on
July 29, 2020 3:52 PM
-
This type of roster management is against the best interest of the league, also of a further scope than we initially discussed. I raised the following point historically, hoping for a league vote on penalties, but we thought it was best to do nothing "The argument is not about inglorious specifically, FWIW, he will not be subject to any penalties as no additional penalties were in place. Hypothetically if someone ran their team to 60 (without IL) I could See that being frustrating [league]&
BeachBoys on
July 29, 2020 3:50 PM
-
Pratt that's probably because no one thought we had someone in the league that was crappy enough to do it.
-
For the 3rd time now, no we did not discuss this Pratt. What you are doing was only discussed as being clearly the problem we sought to avoid. This is not acceptable to stand as is in my opinion, and I'll be awaiting the commissioners ruling on it but would love to hear from the rest of the league.
-
We brought this up last year, people asked if we should make a firm rule on what im doing and we didn't. Not gonna sit here and waste my time with this
-
Pratt, we drafted 3/3/19 and I (like everyone) left valid. I added 2 players 3/5/19, complaint 3/13/19 and was resolved that day. My 2 players for not even 2 weeks to start the season have nothing to do with this, as we've all agreed that is within reason and has penalty enough. You are well outside of reason.
-
So far i have learned that if you have an invalid roster of +5 players the rules dont apply. Will wait to learn more
-
I hope we have a decision by 10:17 tomorrow morning as to whether this is acceptable or not, so I can get my 20+ noms in before my trade processes and makes my roster invalid.
-
...sorry Pratt, I'd have a problem with others, too, but you're the only one that is currently with a roster of 60+ players. Don't act like this has been done before in this league, and don't act like you don't understand the issue with it. It's an incredibly selfish and crappy thing to do. Low class man. Trash.
-
People have been over the limit for months at a time. Selective memory, especially since it was your team that was the one called out for it last year.
-
No one has exploited this before, gtfo it. People have had an invalid roster of a few dudes for a few days and the built in penalties for that are fine. This is not that. It's so bush league and petty it's almost cringey. You bring corked bats to beer league softball too? It's not even an attempt at skill, just a shotgun approach to capturing breakouts. It hurts the league and shouldn't stand whatsoever.
-
Sick burn. "Team twat" legendary takedown of me. You must have also missed the part where i said the majority of this league has also exploited this rule. I guess it only upsets you when certain people are doing it though
-
Gotcha. So you knew the exploit, you knew it makes you look like a chump and really shreds the integrity of the league. And then you said "Yeah I'm fine with that." Cool, just wanted to be clear. If nothing else becomes of this, let's at least change your name to Team Twat.
-
Perfect, will save me time rejecting all the trash offers you guys send me
-
The best punishment is for the rest of the league to simply refuse to be a trading partner. We don't negotiate with fantasy terrorists taking hostages!
-
Just a bit, you must be confused, I never mentioned that i should be puniahed at all. Frankly, i shouldn't be. People have been exploiting this rule for years and I did it at a higher level. If people want to make a rule going forward, I'm 100% for that.
-
I mean I just don't get why a team would do this in the first place. Clearly this is a shady thing to do. Pratt you obviously understand that the "punishment" you mentioned means squat when you're not competing anyway. Call it exploiting a loophole if you want, but really it's just shitty.
-
IMO, this issue is a larger issue during season that during the off-season, so if we want to have a separate rule for in versus off that could be an idea as well.
-
First offense: Players will be removed from said team in reverse order of them being added until the roster is valid. Players would be awarded to second place team if auction is method of acquisition. If no other bids were made, they would become immediately available to the league to re-auction.
Second offense: See above plus some sort of penalty ($10 ?) added to player voted on by league participants.
Third offense: Peace out.
-
Tbh we kind of did address this and specifically said this type of thing was obviously a problem. We left it alone cause we assumed no one was douchey enough to challenge it and make it happen for real.
-
I don't know the best way to structure a rule, but something to the effect of:
When any transaction leaves a team with an invalid roster, said team has X days (3 seems reasonable, no?) to make roster valid both in roster size and budget.
-
There would be nothing keeping me from going out and doing the same thing and that's not good for the long term competitiveness of the league.
-
You are correct in stating that teams have had invalid rosters for extended periods of time, but never to this extent. It is annoying seeing a team invalid when it's 2-3 players or a couple $, but you're 17 roster slots over, lol. I think we made a mistake not addressing it formally the first time, but I think we definitely need to address it now and make a rule regarding invalid rosters before this gets further out of hand.
-
Ive seen people in this league be over roster limits for months at a time and never said a word. If you want to make a rule going forward, im all for it.
-
This is extreme definitely an extreme example and your intention here is to clearly skirt the rules. It's absolutely bush league and leaves this league much worse off.
-
"The argument is not about inglorious specifically, FWIW, he will not be subject to any penalties as no additional penalties were in place. Hypothetically if someone ran their team to 60 (without IL) I could See that being frustrating for rest of league"
-
"I don’t want to set any specific limits , personally , but similar to collusion, if the league feels someone is acting extreme in this manner , we should have extreme penalties. Cutting all players that were added and adding a 10$ cap penalty to most expensive player. Any other ideas are welcome"
-
"I'm not attempting to strategically hoard players at the moment, but we may as well use this innocent example to set the terms moving forward so someone doesn't win 20 auctions before seasons end to sit on trade bait and maximize chance of windfall type moves. We either acknowledge and allow this, giving us all a chance to out bid said player. Or we outright deny it, and force cuts in reverse order as they were added to maintain legal standing after a certain amount of time."
-
We had this conversation in March of 2019 and specifically said this is the type of shit that cannot be happening actually. Getting rosters to 60 was precisely the kind of move we wanted to avoid.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages