|
Post by winker on Apr 13, 2007 13:34:06 GMT -5
Now that its been cleared up When can I expect the return of Owens? When you man up and apologize for calling me a thief. I did nothing other than follow the rule as written by the commish.
|
|
|
Post by TribeFanInAZ on Apr 13, 2007 13:52:32 GMT -5
Undoubtedly, this has been the "greyest" of the rules for this league.
In my opinion, as fellow owners we sometimes BENEFIT from the fact that another owner hasn't called up a prospect. Could Osborne's team be better with Duncan? Maybe. Could Salsero's team be better with Russell Martin? Likely. In essence, by keeping them on their Minors Roster, they are punishing themselves a bit.
Yes, it is hard for us to keep track of what Minor Leaguers are "owned" by other teams, but we knew that would be difficult when we decided to have Minor League rosters in the first place! The Minor League keeper roster makes this league unique. We just need to fine tune the way that it works.
The answer may be something as simple as instituting rules such as:
1.) If a hitter has more than 150 Major League at-bats and is on his real-life team's Major League roster, then he cannot be on a Minor League roster unless he is sent down to the minors.
2.) If a pitcher has more than 10 Games Started or has more 25 "Appearances" Starting or Relieving AND is on his team's real-life Major League roster, then he cannot be on a Minor League roster unless he is sent down to the minors.
I have seen this kind of rule in other leagues...
|
|
|
Post by wvtf on Apr 13, 2007 14:22:29 GMT -5
Now that its been cleared up When can I expect the return of Owens? Has it been "cleared up"? Rule 7, as posted above, has never been edited to show a change. That is why I posted it, so we would all understand and play by the same rules. My only concern about the players Winker picked up would be Russell Martin, as it was I that brought it to the attention of the commish. and he was taken away from HB Whiteys. HB Whiteys team should also have Matt Kemp, as he was drafted in the Minor league draft and need not remain on the major league team. ( "as we are not drafting each others minor league players"). IMO winker was playing under the posted set of rules. I just wish he would have waited until we were all on the same page so all these hard feelings wouldn't have happened. My two cents how to resolve this issue. Return all players involved and set a date, April 20th , one week from today to comply with rule 7 or said players are FA's.
|
|
|
Post by zemtech on Apr 13, 2007 15:09:44 GMT -5
Now that its been cleared up When can I expect the return of Owens? When you man up and apologize for calling me a thief. I did nothing other than follow the rule as written by the commish. It was a joke get over yourself. And so far you are showing that Joke to be accurate. Stop using lame excuses to keep players that dont belong to you! Man up admit you are wrong and return those players! I also noticed that you intend to start these players tonight how can you take points from players that dont belong to you?
|
|
|
Post by zemtech on Apr 13, 2007 15:36:05 GMT -5
Now that its been cleared up When can I expect the return of Owens? Has it been "cleared up"? Rule 7, as posted above, has never been edited to show a change. That is why I posted it, so we would all understand and play by the same rules. My only concern about the players Winker picked up would be Russell Martin, as it was I that brought it to the attention of the commish. and he was taken away from HB Whiteys. HB Whiteys team should also have Matt Kemp, as he was drafted in the Minor league draft and need not remain on the major league team. ( "as we are not drafting each others minor league players"). IMO winker was playing under the posted set of rules. I just wish he would have waited until we were all on the same page so all these hard feelings wouldn't have happened. My two cents how to resolve this issue. Return all players involved and set a date, April 20th , one week from today to comply with rule 7 or said players are FA's. the comish has made a ruling that the 3 players were to return back to the free agent pool with a full explanation as to his decission. I was playing by the rules set by the commish as explained to me by him before the season started. Do you honestly belive that I would be stupid enough to leave Owens unprotected? No I dont think so. And alot of other players are playing by the same rules. I am sorry that Winker miss understood the rules but I shouldnt lose a player for it. The commish has made a decission and Winker is being petty by not returning him. Why doesnt he do the right thing and return the 3 players and have be done with it? I am not the bad guy here I want a player that I protected on my minor legue roster back. When i make a mistake I try to fix it!
|
|
|
Post by TribeFanInAZ on Apr 13, 2007 16:44:11 GMT -5
HB Whiteys team should also have Matt Kemp, as he was drafted in the Minor league draft and need not remain on the major league team. ( "as we are not drafting each others minor league players"). HB Whiteys do not own Matt Kemp for the following reason... tribefan31 (Haggstown's brother and former owner of the White Sox) brought Matt Kemp up to his MAJOR LEAGUE roster last year. He kept Kemp on the Major League roster thru the end of the year. Therefore, Kemp was on the White Sox 30-man roster at the point when BrownieInHB (new White Sox owner) selected his 18 Keepers. *Note: The White Sox end-of-season 2006 roster was shown in a post by me on the bottom of Page 1 of the Discussion Thread. By virtue of Kemp being left off Brownie's 18-man Keeper list, he did not return to the White Sox minor league roster as his property and instead was a draftable player in the Major League draft's available player pool. I drafted him under these circumstances, having kept close track of the protected/unprotected players... Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by wvtf on Apr 13, 2007 17:47:07 GMT -5
Point being Kemp was added to the 30 man roster and other players in question were never added to the roster last year.
Yeah makes sense, I'm sorry, my mistake.
I still say under the posted league rules, changes that were supposed to take place were never updated to reflect this change.
|
|
|
Post by wvtf on Apr 13, 2007 18:05:36 GMT -5
We'll go with the latter............we'll decide when we bring them up.............. Ok, I found this, I still say rule changes should be posted under league rules, so we don't have to search discussion threads to find the offical answers. I hate rule changes on the fly after a draft has started. Indians playing a home game at home in sunshine so all is good.
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 13, 2007 18:44:05 GMT -5
Sorry guys..............I should have updated the rules when needed................having a newborn on the way.......job searching.........and other etc. sometimes we just lose track.
I'll update it in just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by winker on Apr 13, 2007 18:53:51 GMT -5
Zem, I'm tired of your stupidity. I followed the rules as written at the beginning of this thread (and then were inquired about by D-Rays), and reaffirmed by the commish saying, "now we will enforce it".
Subsequent to that (2 days later), the commish posted an interpretation of the 'intent' of the rule. That's fine. I e-mailed the commish, and asked him to make the needed adjustment using his commish tools. To just drop the players and then wait for my original players to clear waivers to reclaim them, would cause me to play short handed for the rest of the week. If I had done something wrong, I might have dropped them, but since I played within the written rules (which were intent was interpreted after I picked up the players in question), I chose to ask the commish to use his tools to restore things.
Your continual bitching is getting old. Your lame excuse about not calling me a thief is retarded. The title of your post says "Stop Thief", and then refers my actions.
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 13, 2007 19:00:01 GMT -5
I've set up some options for vote on yahoo's league home page. Please go there and vote. Guys, sorry for the confusion and my kids right now are getting really loud and tiresome. I'm gonna have to go for right now. I'll update things tomorrow morning or tonight if I can.
|
|
|
Post by zemtech on Apr 14, 2007 0:22:02 GMT -5
Winker since I feel i am talking to a ignorant man who doesnt want to be logical then I will not debate this any more! Lets move on!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by TheCanes05 on Apr 15, 2007 10:15:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wvtf on Apr 17, 2007 2:05:35 GMT -5
Starting next year can we drop a catcher position from the starting line up? I feel the position is too thin for two starting/scoring slots.
Any other thoughts
|
|
|
Post by fantasygeek on Apr 17, 2007 14:29:32 GMT -5
Fine by me. I like the new banana.
|
|
|
Post by winker on Apr 17, 2007 14:45:30 GMT -5
I would be against it unless Salsero and I each get a supplemental draft pick prior to round one of next year's draft.
The reason for that is that each of us had 2 keeper catchers this season. I kept two, specifically because of the scarcity factor that WVTF mentions. In doing so, I left better players off of my list. If we drop a catcher next season, I will only keep 1 as a keeper next season, and thus will be losing a keeper, and whoever I keep in his place, will not be someone who was 'keeper quality' last season.
|
|