fawkes_mulder

2017 Commissioner / League Rules / League Drama

Recommended Posts

I didn't see a thread posted for this year when I searched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some drama in my NL only league regarding Adam Frazier MI eligibility. Commissioner is trying to force me to take him out of MI position slot. Relevant info here:

 

Adam Frazier has 4 games at 2B and 1 game at SS. CBS default rules allows us to put him at MI, because 5 games are required for MI eligibility. Next to his name, however, he only qualifies at OF.

PER our constitution:

• Players are eligible at their primary position plus positions at which they've played 20 games the previous year or 5 games in the current year. • A player who did not appear in the majors in the previous year is eligible at any position for which he appeared in at least 20 games in the minors during the previous season. • All players are eligible at Utility

 

MY ARGUMENT:

Frazier has played 4 games at 2b and 1 game at SS. That is clearly the 5 games required for MI eligibility. The constitution is long and complex, but nowhere in the constitution do I see the rule you are attempting to enforce right now (unless I missed it? That is possible).

Anyways, it sounds like there may be an ambiguity as to whether "MI" is a position. In baseball, obviously MI is not a 1-9 position. But in FANTASY BASEBALL, MI is a position. Since there is an ambiguity and the constitution does not appear to resolve the ambiguity, I think default rules are the most fair and reasonable measure to resolve it. CBS default allows us to put Frazier at MI. Therefore, respectfully, we wish to keep him there.

Anyways, commish is still trying to force me to take him out of the MI spot. Thoughts?

reddit thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sven said:

CSB

no this is not CSB.

 

I feel there should be a place to talk about league issues, rule interpretations, etc.

 

CSB is -- I just won 5/5 leagues this year and made $10,000!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commissioner is an idiot.  Give me his email address and I'll tell him so.  Last year before season Miguel Sano had CI Eligibility only.  Not 3B or 1B.  It's a cut and dry rule.  Some guys play multiple positions over the diamond.  Frazier is MI.  If the site says it then there should be no stink.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless my reading is bad...

 

he qualifes for that position setting in both CBS default and your league charter ( 5 games ). I see no reason for the commissioner to " force" you from allowing him in MI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fawkes_mulder said:

There's some drama in my NL only league regarding Adam Frazier MI eligibility. Commissioner is trying to force me to take him out of MI position slot. Relevant info here:

 

Adam Frazier has 4 games at 2B and 1 game at SS. CBS default rules allows us to put him at MI, because 5 games are required for MI eligibility. Next to his name, however, he only qualifies at OF.

PER our constitution:

• Players are eligible at their primary position plus positions at which they've played 20 games the previous year or 5 games in the current year. • A player who did not appear in the majors in the previous year is eligible at any position for which he appeared in at least 20 games in the minors during the previous season. • All players are eligible at Utility

 

MY ARGUMENT:

Frazier has played 4 games at 2b and 1 game at SS. That is clearly the 5 games required for MI eligibility. The constitution is long and complex, but nowhere in the constitution do I see the rule you are attempting to enforce right now (unless I missed it? That is possible).

Anyways, it sounds like there may be an ambiguity as to whether "MI" is a position. In baseball, obviously MI is not a 1-9 position. But in FANTASY BASEBALL, MI is a position. Since there is an ambiguity and the constitution does not appear to resolve the ambiguity, I think default rules are the most fair and reasonable measure to resolve it. CBS default allows us to put Frazier at MI. Therefore, respectfully, we wish to keep him there.

Anyways, commish is still trying to force me to take him out of the MI spot. Thoughts?

reddit thread

In a vacuum, I would tend to agree with your commish and say that MI is not a position and that he must gain eligibility at 2B or SS in order to be played there. However, because your platform decided that it is a position, I would default to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an odd situation.  I think I'm with you.  If your league rules aren't specific about it, then I think you default to what the hosting site (CBS) allows.  This is why it's often a bad idea to have rules that differ from what the default rules are.

 

The funny thing about this is, it's Adam Frazier.  What, you have some huge leg up on the league with Adam Frazier's 5 Rs & 4 RBIs, vs whomever else you could have picked up out of free agency to play in that spot?

 

I mean, rules are rules, but there's a certain level of "who gives a crap" to this one.

Edited by 89Topps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

That's an odd situation.  I think I'm with you.  If your league rules aren't specific about it, then I think you default to what the hosting site (CBS) allows.  This is why it's often a bad idea to have rules that differ from what the default rules are.

 

The funny thing about this is, it's Adam Frazier.  What, you have some huge leg up on the league with Adam Frazier's 5 Rs & 4 RBIs, vs whomever else you could have picked up out of free agency to play in that spot?

 

I mean, rules are rules, but there's a certain level of "who gives a crap" to this one.

10 team NL only league, Adam Frazier is actually pretty important lol. Replacement options are like Greg Garcia, stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had similar drama last year at the beginning of the season in my AL Only league.  Sano was CI only and people complained that CI isn't a position and he shohld be UTL only.  Commish ultimately ruled with what the site shows.  I mean it's logical, if you could place a guy in the position freely, what's the problem?

Edited by Cmilne23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your commish is an idiot

since you have a Middle Infielder as a position on your roster and Frazier has his 5 games under the eligibility rules he should be awarded MI ....

 

on ESPN if & when Adam Frazier gets 10 total starts at 2B or SS he will gain MI status.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fawkes_mulder said:

There's some drama in my NL only league regarding Adam Frazier MI eligibility. Commissioner is trying to force me to take him out of MI position slot. Relevant info here:

 

Adam Frazier has 4 games at 2B and 1 game at SS. CBS default rules allows us to put him at MI, because 5 games are required for MI eligibility. Next to his name, however, he only qualifies at OF.

PER our constitution:

• Players are eligible at their primary position plus positions at which they've played 20 games the previous year or 5 games in the current year. • A player who did not appear in the majors in the previous year is eligible at any position for which he appeared in at least 20 games in the minors during the previous season. • All players are eligible at Utility

 

MY ARGUMENT:

Frazier has played 4 games at 2b and 1 game at SS. That is clearly the 5 games required for MI eligibility. The constitution is long and complex, but nowhere in the constitution do I see the rule you are attempting to enforce right now (unless I missed it? That is possible).

Anyways, it sounds like there may be an ambiguity as to whether "MI" is a position. In baseball, obviously MI is not a 1-9 position. But in FANTASY BASEBALL, MI is a position. Since there is an ambiguity and the constitution does not appear to resolve the ambiguity, I think default rules are the most fair and reasonable measure to resolve it. CBS default allows us to put Frazier at MI. Therefore, respectfully, we wish to keep him there.

Anyways, commish is still trying to force me to take him out of the MI spot. Thoughts?

reddit thread

I can see this going either way, but I would say he's ineligible to play MI. 

 

I'm not sure if it really matters whether the fantasy position is called MI or 2B/SS. If he plays 4 at 2B and 1 at SS you can argue that he should be eligible at MI and 2B/SS. I don't think that yahoo or wherever chose to go with MI over 2B/SS for any material reason. I guess that counterargument would have to prove otherwise. 

 

The 2B/SS position was not created intending to combine the two for eligibility purposes. It is a position you can play an eligible SS or 2B at.  In order to qualify as a 2B or SS in your league the MLB player would have to play 5 games, according to your constitution, at SS or 2B thereby obtaining the qualification.

 

In support of this conclusion  I would also argue that the section of the constitution also seems to be referencing actual MLB positions and not the fictional fantasy position, with possible exception to the last sentence. 

 

Edited by goldbaby11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fawkes_mulder said:

10 team NL only league, Adam Frazier is actually pretty important lol. Replacement options are like Greg Garcia, stuff like that.

 

I figured it would be a deep league for Adam Frazier to cause a stir.  Still, according to the commissioners rules, when would he gain eligibility?  Tomorrow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 89Topps said:

 

I figured it would be a deep league for Adam Frazier to cause a stir.  Still, according to the commissioners rules, when would he gain eligibility?  Tomorrow?

The next time he plays at 2b. I don't know how long that will take. It would probably take less than a week if Marte was still playing. With Marte's suspension, I figure Harrison has an almost fulltime role at 2b now. It might take days, but it might take weeks or even months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fawkes_mulder said:

There's some drama in my NL only league regarding Adam Frazier MI eligibility. Commissioner is trying to force me to take him out of MI position slot. Relevant info here:

 

Adam Frazier has 4 games at 2B and 1 game at SS. CBS default rules allows us to put him at MI, because 5 games are required for MI eligibility. Next to his name, however, he only qualifies at OF.

PER our constitution:

• Players are eligible at their primary position plus positions at which they've played 20 games the previous year or 5 games in the current year. • A player who did not appear in the majors in the previous year is eligible at any position for which he appeared in at least 20 games in the minors during the previous season. • All players are eligible at Utility

 

MY ARGUMENT:

Frazier has played 4 games at 2b and 1 game at SS. That is clearly the 5 games required for MI eligibility. The constitution is long and complex, but nowhere in the constitution do I see the rule you are attempting to enforce right now (unless I missed it? That is possible).

Anyways, it sounds like there may be an ambiguity as to whether "MI" is a position. In baseball, obviously MI is not a 1-9 position. But in FANTASY BASEBALL, MI is a position. Since there is an ambiguity and the constitution does not appear to resolve the ambiguity, I think default rules are the most fair and reasonable measure to resolve it. CBS default allows us to put Frazier at MI. Therefore, respectfully, we wish to keep him there.

Anyways, commish is still trying to force me to take him out of the MI spot. Thoughts?

reddit thread

4 2b + 1 SS = 5 MI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2ndCitySox said:

4 2b + 1 SS = 5 MI. 

Correct. Commissioner is trying to say for MI elig, he needs to get 5 at SS or 5 at 2b. That adding it up is against the league rules, which take precedent over site rules. NL only league has been in existence since 1995, so they don't really care what CBS is doing. That's what is causing all this stir.

 

But the league rules are still ambiguous on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fawkes_mulder said:

The next time he plays at 2b. I don't know how long that will take. It would probably take less than a week if Marte was still playing. With Marte's suspension, I figure Harrison has an almost fulltime role at 2b now. It might take days, but it might take weeks or even months.

 

Really simple solution moving forward would be to rewrite the rules to state "we follow CBS' eligibility guidelines".  That takes any confusion out and keeps your LM from having to police people's rosters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fawkes_mulder said:

Correct. Commissioner is trying to say for MI elig, he needs to get 5 at SS or 5 at 2b. That adding it up is against the league rules, which take precedent over site rules. NL only league has been in existence since 1995, so they don't really care what CBS is doing. That's what is causing all this stir.

 

But the league rules are still ambiguous on the issue.

Has this happened before? The league is 22 years old!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2ndCitySox said:

Has this happened before? The league is 22 years old!

Incredibly, this looks like it might be an issue of first impression. The commish is trying to look for precedent from prior years haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the rules are ambiguous then I'd just hold a league vote on the rule. I've been a commish for several years, and that's what I would propose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for help from other more experienced LM's out there - how do you know if you have a case of collusion on your hands?  

 

I've got a new owner this year in our "keep 3" league that has been making questionable trades, and just hit a new low, agreeing to trade away his Corey Kluber and G. Polanco for Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, and Chris Taylor.  Kluber was one of his 3 keepers (whom he traded Josh Donaldson for in the off-season), and I just don't see the reasoning for this trade no matter how I try to look at it.  

 

Due to other bad trades, he already has 6 bench bats to only 8 total pitchers on his roster, including three 1B, three 3B (now four with Taylor), and will have three 2B now too.  Yet he never sets his lineup (has played with Polanco in his lineup since he went on the DL, and this is a daily lineup league).  He's also made fewer FA adds than trades.  He was also a no-show at the draft and said he got stuck working late.

 

However at the same time he's made trades with 3 different teams, so it's hard for me to reason there's collusion when I have no evidence any of the other owners involved know each other.  I always said as a LM I would only veto for collusion/cheating, but now seeing how downright bad this trade is it makes me think even if it's not collusion this guy could be ruining competitive balance for a team he'll likely bail from at the end of the season, leaving me to find a new owner for a team with no legit keepers.

 

What's the right move in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like he already abandoned his team with still having Polanco in the starting line up. As for the trades not much you can do about that as it is his team. Personally I would replace him now and just site it as inactivity and get a head start on next year as more then likely you will never see him in future years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, handyandy86 said:

Looking for help from other more experienced LM's out there - how do you know if you have a case of collusion on your hands?  

 

I've got a new owner this year in our "keep 3" league that has been making questionable trades, and just hit a new low, agreeing to trade away his Corey Kluber and G. Polanco for Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, and Chris Taylor.  Kluber was one of his 3 keepers (whom he traded Josh Donaldson for in the off-season), and I just don't see the reasoning for this trade no matter how I try to look at it.  

 

Due to other bad trades, he already has 6 bench bats to only 8 total pitchers on his roster, including three 1B, three 3B (now four with Taylor), and will have three 2B now too.  Yet he never sets his lineup (has played with Polanco in his lineup since he went on the DL, and this is a daily lineup league).  He's also made fewer FA adds than trades.  He was also a no-show at the draft and said he got stuck working late.

 

However at the same time he's made trades with 3 different teams, so it's hard for me to reason there's collusion when I have no evidence any of the other owners involved know each other.  I always said as a LM I would only veto for collusion/cheating, but now seeing how downright bad this trade is it makes me think even if it's not collusion this guy could be ruining competitive balance for a team he'll likely bail from at the end of the season, leaving me to find a new owner for a team with no legit keepers.

 

What's the right move in this situation?

I'd say put a moratorium on transactions for the team on account of his inactivity/non-competitiveness. Voice your concerns and then allow him to explain himself to the league. Afterward, let the other owners decide what should happen with him (possibilities are: nothing if he has a good reason, closer scrutiny of his transactions, or straight up kicking him out now if you're sure he's going to leave anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, handyandy86 said:

Looking for help from other more experienced LM's out there - how do you know if you have a case of collusion on your hands?  

 

I've got a new owner this year in our "keep 3" league that has been making questionable trades, and just hit a new low, agreeing to trade away his Corey Kluber and G. Polanco for Chris Tillman, Gio Gonzalez, and Chris Taylor.  Kluber was one of his 3 keepers (whom he traded Josh Donaldson for in the off-season), and I just don't see the reasoning for this trade no matter how I try to look at it.  

 

Due to other bad trades, he already has 6 bench bats to only 8 total pitchers on his roster, including three 1B, three 3B (now four with Taylor), and will have three 2B now too.  Yet he never sets his lineup (has played with Polanco in his lineup since he went on the DL, and this is a daily lineup league).  He's also made fewer FA adds than trades.  He was also a no-show at the draft and said he got stuck working late.

 

However at the same time he's made trades with 3 different teams, so it's hard for me to reason there's collusion when I have no evidence any of the other owners involved know each other.  I always said as a LM I would only veto for collusion/cheating, but now seeing how downright bad this trade is it makes me think even if it's not collusion this guy could be ruining competitive balance for a team he'll likely bail from at the end of the season, leaving me to find a new owner for a team with no legit keepers.

 

What's the right move in this situation?

1 hour ago, ArcaneCharge said:

I'd say put a moratorium on transactions for the team on account of his inactivity/non-competitiveness. Voice your concerns and then allow him to explain himself to the league. Afterward, let the other owners decide what should happen with him (possibilities are: nothing if he has a good reason, closer scrutiny of his transactions, or straight up kicking him out now if you're sure he's going to leave anyway.)

 

Looks like you signed up a bum for a manager.  I don't know the entirety of the situation, which could change my position, but your hands are tied at this point.  You allowed a player with inadequate fantasy knowledge to manage a team and are now paying for it.  

 

At the same time, Kluber has been absolute garbage & Gio has been a stud.  They are the same age, and their career numbers aren't astronomically different.  Further, Gregory Polanco is among the most overrated players in the MLB.  Look at his numbers and tell me anything exceptional about him other than hype.  Career 250/320/400 guy?  That's pretty foul for nearly 3 full MLB seasons. Plus, you mention that he doesn't have enough pitchers, yet he is gaining one with this trade.  Sounds to me like he's trying to improve a roster weakness.  

 

The whole collusion / trade veto conversation drives me ******** bonkers, ESPECIALLY in the keeper/dynasty world.  Just because you think the trade is way off, doesn't mean it's collusion.  I stay as far away from vetoing as possible, I think it can lead to cancer & a stagnant league.  Besides, it's a 3 keeper league, the impact from a few weak trades isn't going to completely screw the league.  Trades with him should be fair game.

 

And to the moratorium guy - c'mon man, how un-American are you? 

 

FREEDOM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.