2018 WBKL Supplemental Draft - CLOCK IS ON 10am-10pm DAILY

Round 1- NO CLOCK
1. MEAT - Zack Eflin SP PHA
2. WJS6768 - Ross Stripling RP LAD
3. hk mossy = Ottavino, Adam RP COL
4. nythawk - Miles Mikolas SP STL
5. bigmahon - Mike Foltynewicz SP ATL
6. lferenti123
7. ehlekev1
8. edub1969
9. dharmabums
10. Turtle
11. lakeviewdave
12. Dr. Publix

Round 1- NO CLOCK
1. MEAT - Zack Eflin SP PHA
2. WJS6768 - Ross Stripling RP LAD
3. hk mossy = Ottavino, Adam RP COL
4. nythawk - Miles Mikolas SP STL
5. bigmahon - Mike Foltynewicz SP ATL
6. lferenti123- Nick Pivetta SP PHI
7. ehlekev1
8. edub1969
9. dharmabums
10. Turtle
11. lakeviewdave
12. Dr. Publix

Round 1- NO CLOCK
1. MEAT - Zack Eflin SP PHA
2. WJS6768 - Ross Stripling RP LAD
3. hk mossy = Ottavino, Adam RP COL
4. nythawk - Miles Mikolas SP STL
5. bigmahon - Mike Foltynewicz SP ATL
6. lferenti123- Nick Pivetta SP PHI
7. ehlekev1 - Junior Guerra SP MIL
8. edub1969
9. dharmabums
10. Turtle
11. lakeviewdave
12. Dr. Publix

I thought Dave posted carded only for this keeper somewhere so is Hawk's pick of Mikolas still good since he's had a card previously but not in this set?

I thought Dave posted carded only for this keeper somewhere so is Hawk's pick of Mikolas still good since he's had a card previously but not in this set?

From the rules:

7. Eligibility for the players to be drafted follows the same rules as the Spring Free Agent draft for that year. Which is any player with a SOMO card that is not currently owned by another team.

I thought Dave posted carded only for this keeper somewhere so is Hawk's pick of Mikolas still good since he's had a card previously but not in this set?

From the rules:

7. Eligibility for the players to be drafted follows the same rules as the Spring Free Agent draft for that year. Which is any player with a SOMO card that is not currently owned by another team.

In reading the rules, I think the intent was the current card set only, but it does specifically say that. So, for this supplemental draft only I think we are going to have to allow it, but this will be changed going forward. I do not see any other way to address this right now, as other picks have been made.

Anyone disagree with this?

I am fine with your ruling in this case, as the wording in the published rules could have been more clear. But isn't the alternate interpretation of said wording a bit of a stretch? Why would any standard keeper league have a rule focused on cards from earlier years (?).

Round 1- NO CLOCK
1. MEAT - Zack Eflin SP PHA
2. WJS6768 - Ross Stripling RP LAD
3. hk mossy = Ottavino, Adam RP COL
4. nythawk - Miles Mikolas SP STL
5. bigmahon - Mike Foltynewicz SP ATL
6. lferenti123- Nick Pivetta SP PHI
7. ehlekev1 - Junior Guerra SP MIL
8. edub1969
9. dharmabums
10. Turtle
11. lakeviewdave
12. Dr. Publix

I thought Dave posted carded only for this keeper somewhere so is Hawk's pick of Mikolas still good since he's had a card previously but not in this set?

From the rules:

7. Eligibility for the players to be drafted follows the same rules as the Spring Free Agent draft for that year. Which is any player with a SOMO card that is not currently owned by another team.

In reading the rules, I think the intent was the current card set only, but it does specifically say that. So, for this supplemental draft only I think we are going to have to allow it, but this will be changed going forward. I do not see any other way to address this right now, as other picks have been made.

Anyone disagree with this?

I disagree with this. I think the intent is very clear, whether it explicitly states the current year or not. The rule states “the same rules as the spring free agent draft,” which has always been limited to the current set. The only fair way to address it is to have Hawk re-pick now, even though other picks have been made (just as would be the case if he had picked someone who was on another roster and no one realized it until several picks later.). And just as was the case in the spring FA draft had someone picked an uncarded (or unleashed player.)

The guys picking before nighthawk may have picked Mikolas had they realized that we were going to change the rules for this draft. And this league has always only allowed carded players (in the current set) to be drafted. So I think he should need to re-pick.

I thought Dave posted carded only for this keeper somewhere so is Hawk's pick of Mikolas still good since he's had a card previously but not in this set?

From the rules:

7. Eligibility for the players to be drafted follows the same rules as the Spring Free Agent draft for that year. Which is any player with a SOMO card that is not currently owned by another team.[/quote]

In reading the rules, I think the intent was the current card set only, but it does specifically say that. So, for this supplemental draft only I think we are going to have to allow it, but this will be changed going forward. I do not see any other way to address this right now, as other picks have been made.

Anyone disagree with this?[/quote]

I disagree with this. I think the intent is very clear, whether it explicitly states the current year or not. The rule states “the same rules as the spring free agent draft,” which has always been limited to the current set. The only fair way to address it is to have Hawk re-pick now, even though other picks have been made (just as would be the case if he had picked someone who was on another roster and no one realized it until several picks later.). And just as was the case in the spring FA draft had someone picked an uncarded (or unleashed player.)

The guys picking before nighthawk may have picked Mikolas had they realized that we were going to change the rules for this draft. And this league has always only allowed carded players (in the current set) to be drafted. So I think he should need to re-pick.[/quote]

I disagree that the rules are clear as they are currently written. Its all in the interpretation of what one reads not changing any rule. I do not see anywhere where is says current card set. My personable beliefs are that it means current cards, but nythawk129921 may have interpreted that differenty. Would like him to repond on this as to what his thinking was.