BLATANT Cheating???? - REVISED II

[MARCPELLETIER]

I actually think that all 11 other managers share responsibility for NOT letting this poor fellow some 0.75M relievers to choose from.

If you all go for the pie, you can't blame the guy for eating all the cake.

[durantjerry]

It's not cheating, but I think it's poor sportsmanship. I was in a theme league that was agreed to be an $80 cap. Someone was over and evryone but me seemed to think it was OK even though in addition to TSN's $80 cap, everyone signed on for an $80 theme.

[voovits]

Check this team out:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=81666&stats=sim

This is the team I talked about earlier that I lost to in the finals. They made no moves all season long. I am not upset at them because they did not do anything against the rules.
This was my first ever team and when I look back at my team I realized that if I knew what I was doing at the time, I could have beat them, though they have one heck of an amazing 4 man starting rotation.

Being over the cap is not breaking the rules. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you must comply with being under the cap. The above example is the very rare exception to the rule as it's highly likely that he'll have to make some moves during the season and being over the cap will hurt him.

[ROBERTLATORRE]

[quote:7cea1985ab="voovits"]Check this team out:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/playoffs/team_other.html?user_id=81666&stats=sim

This is the team I talked about earlier that I lost to in the finals. They made no moves all season long. I am not upset at them because they did not do anything against the rules.
This was my first ever team and when I look back at my team I realized that if I knew what I was doing at the time, I could have beat them, though they have one heck of an amazing 4 man starting rotation.

Being over the cap is not breaking the rules. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you must comply with being under the cap. The above example is the very rare exception to the rule as it's highly likely that he'll have to make some moves during the season and being over the cap will hurt him.[/quote:7cea1985ab]

OK, it's within the "rules" but it is just unbelievable that TSN can't code the autodraft to prevent this from happening or hold the league until the manager corrects the condition.

It is an unfair advantage for the manager that has the extra salary, even more so in single season leagues. In all leagues the cards are priced based on the implied value, so regardless of whether the manager wants the player assigned to them, they still [b:7cea1985ab]start with a more valuable team then the rest of the league[/b:7cea1985ab].

Can't seem to get my brain around this to let this go, I'll just agree to disagree with everyone that thinks I am overreacting. I seem to do that alot here so it must be me... :shock:

[Mr Baseball World]

I still don't see how there can be a 3 million dollar difference? There have to be players more close in dollars(or lower). Doesn't there have to be a glitch?

[ROBERTLATORRE]

[quote:22caf2a2a8="Mr. Baseball World"]I still don't see how there can be a 3 million dollar difference? There have to be players more close in dollars(or lower). Doesn't there have to be a glitch?[/quote:22caf2a2a8]

Glitch, bug, oversight, whatever, TSN chose to write the possibility that it could happen into the rules instead of fixing the autodraft bug. There were plenty of lesser players available to fill out the roster. The team in question has only THREE players under 1.35mil and NO pitchers under 1.95mil.

[Mr Baseball World]

My point is that rather than worry about what Joe owner should do, the question shoud be what does TSN need to do.

[voovits]

What you can do is go here:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/70s/draft/draft_results.html

and see which players he missed out on and who he was awarded with in place of them. You can see where the salary jump happened.

[LMBombers]

There is no glitch other than not enough 75¢ (minimum salary players) at each position, mainly OF. If you put a 75¢ OF at #25 on your AD card and there are none left then you obviously will get a higher priced player. TSN just can't make up a fictional 75¢ player that is not in the player pool.

What many of you are missing is the fact that in a mystery card game, where several player moves are almost always required to field a good team, being over the cap IS NOT an advantage. In a single year game where you know what you are getting it would be a very nice advantage. The reason it is not an advantage is the fact that if you need to drop your 6M player because he was given a rotten card you must become cap compliant with your first player transaction so you might only get a 2.5M player for him which really bites.

I have been over the salary cap many times in the 70's game but always dropped down to under 80M before the season. Not because I thought I was playing outside of the rules (because I wasn't) but because I wanted the flexability of player moves once the season got going.

[scorehouse]

DITTO :!: hope he wins.