You got it right IMB
YF
BACK TO 1987 - Knights win championship! Vote on awards
by seanreflex » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:25 pm
Albert, I appreciate the kind words. I feel that there are a couple dozen of us that have been at this a long while together; we know the integrity of our core group, and it was nice to read what you wrote.
I thank all in the league for the decisions made -- as stated, I wasn't going to slit my wrists if AVS wasnt in CF on opening day for the Mango Men, but I think Yount and AVS on BC and my team respectively is right.
Too bad Haywood Sullivan didn't have such support among his peers back in the day.
thanks all,
Sean
I thank all in the league for the decisions made -- as stated, I wasn't going to slit my wrists if AVS wasnt in CF on opening day for the Mango Men, but I think Yount and AVS on BC and my team respectively is right.
Too bad Haywood Sullivan didn't have such support among his peers back in the day.
thanks all,
Sean
- seanreflex
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Hakmusic » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:26 pm
I guess it is a little late to pipe in now that everything has been settled, but I was out all day. I know also that I am in a biased position, being the would be beneficiary of BC's mistake.
I would just point out that after the Wallach incident, the rule was made clear as can be. BC proposed a mulligan rule, it was shot down, so BC stated that that was that, there would be no more allowences for draft mistakes. to quote BC:
Given the opposition apparent, the rule I proposed will not be implemented.
No mulligans this year. You leave someone eligible off your roster he's fair game for eveyone.
That was 10/10/05 in the '84 thread. You can look it up.
I think the decision would likely be different if it were somone other than Yount, and perhaps someone other than BC. I feel that way too, I am indebted to BC for creating the league, and the other decade league as well which I am excited to participate in. I guess I am just bothered that a situation happened, it was discussed, and it was resolved with a rule, and now the rule is being set aside. I think that is unfortunate.
My personal suggestion was that Yount was free game in accordance with the rule. Whether to draft or pass would have been my decision. My solution, and I told BC in a pm that I had a way to resolve it without changing the rule, was that I would trade Yount back to BC at a very very reasonable rate. Not asking for Mattingly or otherwise being detrimental to BC's ability to compete, I would not want to do that to BC, but a reasonable offer, like Garber and Spillner for Williamson and Stoddard and Yount, or SD#33 for Diaz and Yount. Thus the rules would be followed and BC would have Yount.
Would I have ended up with Dracvecky or Garber who were on my card? probably not, but something would have been different. Perhaps BC would have ended up with a lower waivers pick. someone would have been affected. I guess I just don't like to see rules changed or ignored.
We are heading into a new decade league with far more complex rules than this one. I am concerned about what the result will be if there is a situation that goes against the rules of the league there.
that's my rant, take it for what its worth, I will go along with the settlement. Good feelings are better than bad blood.
p.s. I just want to add there is no question in my mind about any integrity issues, I think all involved are of the highest integrity, I don't want anything I said here to be misunderstood as a shot against BC or Sean because it is not at all.
I would just point out that after the Wallach incident, the rule was made clear as can be. BC proposed a mulligan rule, it was shot down, so BC stated that that was that, there would be no more allowences for draft mistakes. to quote BC:
Given the opposition apparent, the rule I proposed will not be implemented.
No mulligans this year. You leave someone eligible off your roster he's fair game for eveyone.
That was 10/10/05 in the '84 thread. You can look it up.
I think the decision would likely be different if it were somone other than Yount, and perhaps someone other than BC. I feel that way too, I am indebted to BC for creating the league, and the other decade league as well which I am excited to participate in. I guess I am just bothered that a situation happened, it was discussed, and it was resolved with a rule, and now the rule is being set aside. I think that is unfortunate.
My personal suggestion was that Yount was free game in accordance with the rule. Whether to draft or pass would have been my decision. My solution, and I told BC in a pm that I had a way to resolve it without changing the rule, was that I would trade Yount back to BC at a very very reasonable rate. Not asking for Mattingly or otherwise being detrimental to BC's ability to compete, I would not want to do that to BC, but a reasonable offer, like Garber and Spillner for Williamson and Stoddard and Yount, or SD#33 for Diaz and Yount. Thus the rules would be followed and BC would have Yount.
Would I have ended up with Dracvecky or Garber who were on my card? probably not, but something would have been different. Perhaps BC would have ended up with a lower waivers pick. someone would have been affected. I guess I just don't like to see rules changed or ignored.
We are heading into a new decade league with far more complex rules than this one. I am concerned about what the result will be if there is a situation that goes against the rules of the league there.
that's my rant, take it for what its worth, I will go along with the settlement. Good feelings are better than bad blood.
p.s. I just want to add there is no question in my mind about any integrity issues, I think all involved are of the highest integrity, I don't want anything I said here to be misunderstood as a shot against BC or Sean because it is not at all.
Last edited by Hakmusic on Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Hakmusic
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by BC Manager » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:26 pm
I have cut Calderone and Wilson. I have Yount as my #1 waiver pick (without dropping anyone).
I doubt whether my other waiver claims will infterfere with others' plans. Even with Yount I have some major holes to fill.
Shows you what a hurry I was in on that fateful Yount day -- I drafted Sambito and put him high on my list, forgetting that this was the 87 league and he is unavailable. So there's one FA I got that did me no good. :D
I doubt whether my other waiver claims will infterfere with others' plans. Even with Yount I have some major holes to fill.
Shows you what a hurry I was in on that fateful Yount day -- I drafted Sambito and put him high on my list, forgetting that this was the 87 league and he is unavailable. So there's one FA I got that did me no good. :D
- BC Manager
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by BC Manager » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:34 pm
[quote:050ec55758]We are heading into a new decade league with far more complex rules than this one. I am concerned about what the result will be if there is a situation that goes against the rules of the league there. [/quote:050ec55758]
The good thing about that league is that the room for error is less. The players who are "yours" and who you have rights to are not impacted by the autodraft. The only players effected will be the FA's from teams not used and no one can say "I should have had..." when they're fair game for everyone.
The good thing about that league is that the room for error is less. The players who are "yours" and who you have rights to are not impacted by the autodraft. The only players effected will be the FA's from teams not used and no one can say "I should have had..." when they're fair game for everyone.
- BC Manager
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by seanreflex » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:36 pm
Hak,
I don't take your input as a "shot" at all -- I understand the deal, and I have been in far too many leagues with you over the years to take your feedback personally.
I am good with whatever decisions are made; I think the one we seem to have agreed on is fair, with Yount to BC and AVS to me.
I also agree the upcoming league is far more complex -- there will be issues similar to this, and probably much more challenging, I am sure, so i understand your position.
We'll work through them all -- I just want everyone to continue to have fun ... thanks,
Sean
I don't take your input as a "shot" at all -- I understand the deal, and I have been in far too many leagues with you over the years to take your feedback personally.
I am good with whatever decisions are made; I think the one we seem to have agreed on is fair, with Yount to BC and AVS to me.
I also agree the upcoming league is far more complex -- there will be issues similar to this, and probably much more challenging, I am sure, so i understand your position.
We'll work through them all -- I just want everyone to continue to have fun ... thanks,
Sean
- seanreflex
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by YountFan » Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:14 am
[quote:bd81a499fe]Given the opposition apparent, the rule I proposed will not be implemented.
No mulligans this year. You leave someone eligible off your roster he's fair game for eveyone.
That was 10/10/05 in the '84 thread. You can look it up. [/quote:bd81a499fe]
Hak, that is where I was coming from in my earlier notes, but it just seems so unfair to keep those players from their owners. However I do fell bad (not too bad) that you cannot improve your team using Yount as leverage. That would have been more fun a spirited, but I like that fact that you don't have Garber.
The issue is resolved, lets have some fun
No mulligans this year. You leave someone eligible off your roster he's fair game for eveyone.
That was 10/10/05 in the '84 thread. You can look it up. [/quote:bd81a499fe]
Hak, that is where I was coming from in my earlier notes, but it just seems so unfair to keep those players from their owners. However I do fell bad (not too bad) that you cannot improve your team using Yount as leverage. That would have been more fun a spirited, but I like that fact that you don't have Garber.
The issue is resolved, lets have some fun
- YountFan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by CHADGUMM » Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:26 am
First off, I think the resolution was the right one. We play this game as a hobby because it's fun and I'm not about to ruin the fun for some just because of an oversight. I know we could put up a hard fight on the rules, but call me crazy but I'd rather allow the rules to be bent than ruin the fun for a few people and slightly improve my chance at winning this season.
Second, and I don't mean to criticize Hak, but I would have put up a HUGE stink if Yount was free to pick up to anyone on waivers, especially with Hak first in line. Just as a reminder, Hak won 97 games last year. Best in the league. Why should Hak's team benefit from BC's mistake? If anything, the worst team last season or the worst team over the past 7 seasons should have had the first crack at Yount. Or instead use some other method were everyone had a crack at Yount. Anyway, this argument is moot now that things have been worked out.
Second, and I don't mean to criticize Hak, but I would have put up a HUGE stink if Yount was free to pick up to anyone on waivers, especially with Hak first in line. Just as a reminder, Hak won 97 games last year. Best in the league. Why should Hak's team benefit from BC's mistake? If anything, the worst team last season or the worst team over the past 7 seasons should have had the first crack at Yount. Or instead use some other method were everyone had a crack at Yount. Anyway, this argument is moot now that things have been worked out.
- CHADGUMM
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by BC Manager » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:30 am
I somehow managed to win 2 out of 3 even though HAL decided to bench Santiago and start Raines at 2B all series.
[b:1f17d3925a]WHY IS HAL OVERIDING MY SET LINEUP?[/b:1f17d3925a]
[b:1f17d3925a]WHY IS HAL OVERIDING MY SET LINEUP?[/b:1f17d3925a]
- BC Manager
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: '70s, '80s, '90s
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests