crocp

Yahoo Admin clears up requests about giving Ayton and Collins INJ tag

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Lob City99 said:


He tweeted after: "To correct a previous tweet: I'm told by league sources, that the John Collins drug test that resulted in a positive result for a banned substance was NOT taken yesterday. The turnaround time for such a positive test is longer than a day."

 

Ah I didn't see that one yesterday. I had just remembered the initial tweet. 

Either way, a player can still be randomly tested during the season - up to four times in the regular season and twice during the offseason.

Share this post


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

In my league we decided that the owner can waive those players and nobody else will pick them from the waivers as long as the owner won't use his IL spot on another player.

 

I bet most leagues will be pissed off managers regarding that decision, but glad your league came to an agreement. Mid season changes are generally pretty taboo in money leagues unless you know the guys. The INJ tag should be there, and i think yahoo may change that, but nothing will change until next year if its up to yahoo. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, johnval1362 said:

I bet most leagues will be pissed off managers regarding that decision, but glad your league came to an agreement. Mid season changes are generally pretty taboo in money leagues unless you know the guys. The INJ tag should be there, and i think yahoo may change that, but nothing will change until next year if its up to yahoo. 

Not changing this season brother. Seems the push from users is being ignored. I got email confirmation that "they will pass it on as a suggestion for next year" which to me translates to go f*** yourself

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CharlesCC2 said:

 

How is this the same when it has nothing to do with penalizing the person who made the poor decision, but instead someone who put their faith in them?  It would be more like if the employer had a project they were contracted for that they could only hire 13 people to work on at once.  If one of those 13 got injured, sick or had a legitimate reason to miss time the employer is allowed to replace them with another worker temporarily.  But if an employee violates a rule on the job where they need to be temporarily reprimanded and suspended but are allowed to return to work in a few months the employer is NOT allowed to replace them during that time and is stuck with 12 workers to do the job they were contracted for.

Why penalize us when we had nothing to do with the poor decision being made?  And anybody who says we made a poor decision for drafting said player is just being an a**.

First off, that's not true bc the employer can hire a temp worker to fill your spot while you're suspended if they really need to. But more to your point, if it's something bad enough to get suspended for a long amount of time, your employer can just fire you and hire someone else (whether or not that makes sense in the real world is a different story. If Ayton's or Collins' suspension is that bad for you that you can't deal, you can cut them too.

 

But say I'm a client, and I contact a company that promises 13 workers and they give me 12 and they won't get a replacement, guess what? Whatever the reason the 13th guy is missing, it's not my problem. If the work isn't getting done well or on time, I can tell the company I hired to f--- off for breach of contract and hire someone else. Likewise, you can tell Yahoo to f--- off and quit your league and go on ESPN or something.

 

8 minutes ago, Lob City99 said:


This is why there is so much conflict with Yahoo. They keep saying that Ayton and Collins are not injured so they won't get the INJ tag. Yet players such as Butler and DSJ get INJ tag for personal reasons in which they ARE NOT INJURED. Why can't they just get the out tag like us Ayton and Collin owners?

You missed my earlier post. I pointed out how that happens in the real world too. You can def use sick time to take care of your sick kid even though you're not sick yourself. You also get PTO for bereavement and that's not you being sick.

Share this post


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

You missed my earlier post. I pointed out how that happens in the real world too. You can def use sick time to take care of your sick kid even though you're not sick yourself. You also get PTO for bereavement and that's not you being sick.

 My comment has nothing to do with the real world workplace. My concern is how Yahoo is using the INJ tag in fantasy sports.

Edited by Lob City99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lob City99 said:

 My comment has nothing to do with the real world workplace. My concern is how Yahoo is using the INJ tag in fantasy sports.

Ok? And I'm trying to rationalize their decision.

 

You don't get PTO when you get arrested and have to serve time even when it's unrelated to work. Your job isn't even protected. Same principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, claptondecheeks said:

First off, that's not true bc the employer can hire a temp worker to fill your spot while you're suspended if they really need to. But more to your point, if it's something bad enough to get suspended for a long amount of time, your employer can just fire you and hire someone else (whether or not that makes sense in the real world is a different story. If Ayton's or Collins' suspension is that bad for you that you can't deal, you can cut them too.

 

But say I'm a client, and I contact a company that promises 13 workers and they give me 12 and they won't get a replacement, guess what? Whatever the reason the 13th guy is missing, it's not my problem. If the work isn't getting done well or on time, I can tell the company I hired to f--- off for breach of contract and hire someone else. Likewise, you can tell Yahoo to f--- off and quit your league and go on ESPN or something.

 

I think you misunderstood my post because I did not mean to imply this was a realistic scenario.  I was proposing a theoretical and meant to ask you if it would make any sense for such a scenario to exist.  I was comparing such a nonsensical scenario to what we are facing having drafted players on suspension who we are unable to replace.

You were saying someone who violates the rules should be penalized, I was saying we did not violate any rules and feel it is unfair for us to be penalized.  And no, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change platforms over.  As a co-commissioner of my league I'm not going to try to propose any concessions to accommodate my team either as that wouldn't really be fair.  It is what it is, I'm just saying sure penalize someone who violated the rules, but it sucks that we did nothing wrong but are paying for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, claptondecheeks said:

Ok? And I'm trying to rationalize their decision.

 

You don't get PTO when you get arrested and have to serve time even when it's unrelated to work. Your job isn't even protected. Same principle.


Ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CharlesCC2 said:

 

I think you misunderstood my post because I did not mean to imply this was a realistic scenario.  I was proposing a theoretical and meant to ask you if it would make any sense for such a scenario to exist.  I was comparing such a nonsensical scenario to what we are facing having drafted players on suspension who we are unable to replace.

You were saying someone who violates the rules should be penalized, I was saying we did not violate any rules and feel it is unfair for us to be penalized.  And no, I don't think it's a big enough deal to change platforms over.  As a co-commissioner of my league I'm not going to try to propose any concessions to accommodate my team either as that wouldn't really be fair.  It is what it is, I'm just saying sure penalize someone who violated the rules, but it sucks that we did nothing wrong but are paying for it.

Oh I get you.

 

I think the most straight forward way to see it and compare it to a real life scenario is pretend you're the employer, Ayton/Collins are your employees, and they committed a crime and gotta serve some jail time. They're not on disability or whatever so they don't have any protections from the govt. If you don't want to save their spot, you gotta fire them.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind Yahoo's decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, claptondecheeks said:

Ok? And I'm trying to rationalize their decision.

 

You don't get PTO when you get arrested and have to serve time even when it's unrelated to work. Your job isn't even protected. Same principle.

Again, I am questioning why you are relating the consequences we are facing (not getting the benefit of using IL for a suspended player) to the consequences imposed on someone who violates the rules.  That is why I used the theoretical analogy of the employer being penalized for the worker violating the rules.

You are making a parallel between us as owners who drafted the violator of rules and the violator themselves.  We are more akin to the NBA team who can replace the player than the player committing the violation.  Isn't the NBA team allowed to fill that players roster spot without cutting them?  I'm not saying we should have the rights of an actual NBA team, but I don't think it's a horrible comparison.

Share this post


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

Glad you finally understood 👍🏼

 Nah bruh, you're not making any sense. We can agree to disagree at this point.

Share this post


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

Oh I get you.

 

I think the most straight forward way to see it and compare it to a real life scenario is pretend you're the employer, Ayton/Collins are your employees, and they committed a crime and gotta serve some jail time. They're not on disability or whatever so they don't have any protections from the govt. If you don't want to save their spot, you gotta fire them.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind Yahoo's decision.

I typed up my last post before I got a chance to read this.  I get what you're saying in trying to understand the rationale and that you aren't trying to make an argument for Yahoo being right.  If my last post came off as argumentative I apologize, was just trying to understand where you were coming from and I think I understand you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, claptondecheeks said:

Think about your place of work. (If you work full time) At most places, you're entitled to take paid time off for minor things like the flu, not just serious things. It doesn't even have to be a physical illness, you can take PTO for mental health. And if you're a parent, you're entitled to PTO when your child is sick. You're also entitled to PTO for bereavement.

 

You're NOT entitled to PTO when you get suspended for violating workplace rules, like if you flip your lid with a client or bailed on your shift.

 

Basically, it's the same type of situation.

 

The issue is punishing the fantasy manager, not the player

 

The league is already punishing the player, but fantasy platforms are punishing the fantasy manager

 

Idk why people are trying to draw parallels to an irl workplace scenario when the actual irl workplace scenario here is the NBA and irl basketball. Applying these scenarios to fantasy basketball and fantasy managers is like trying to squeeze an apple to get orange juice

Edited by PUNTSQUAD
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CharlesCC2 said:

Again, I am questioning why you are relating the consequences we are facing (not getting the benefit of using IL for a suspended player) to the consequences imposed on someone who violates the rules.  That is why I used the theoretical analogy of the employer being penalized for the worker violating the rules.

You are making a parallel between us as owners who drafted the violator of rules and the violator themselves.  We are more akin to the NBA team who can replace the player than the player committing the violation.  Isn't the NBA team allowed to fill that players roster spot without cutting them?  I'm not saying we should have the rights of an actual NBA team, but I don't think it's a horrible comparison.

That's true it's not like the Hawks have 1 less player on the active squad. What I was trying to say before is that IRL, as the employer in the situation I described, you're kinda screwed if your employee misses time even if you're not at fault. The only thing you can do if you can't be short staffed is replace him.

 

I guess my bigger point was to emphasize the difference between employees missing time for a "good" reason vs for a"bad" reason, and how Yahoo may apply that same kind of reasoning in their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that two years ago with the Bledsoe thing, most of this forum was just like "he's not injured, suck it up." 

 

Things done changed, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know if there is any rationalizing it in the end because I feel like it's something Yahoo may revisit in the off-season with all the clamor about it now.  You can put a guy on IL when he misses time for the birth of his child or the passing of a loved one but not when missing time due to suspension.  Obviously these reasons for missing games are not close to equivalent, but my bottom line is that it shouldn't matter what the reason is if Yahoo has already set the precedent of allowing players to be placed on IL without actually being injured.  At this point I hope that in the future they will conclude something along the lines of miss over a week = get INJ designation.  Fairness shouldn't be based on the merit of the reason for missing time when that has nothing to do with any decisions we've made as fantasy managers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have Collins/Ayton: Give them IR eligibility it's so unfair 😖😖

Everyone else who doesn't: lol no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JStyles said:

People who have Collins/Ayton: Give them IR eligibility it's so unfair 😖😖

Everyone else who doesn't: lol no


until their players get hit with a drug suspension 😂

 

If anyone here is a non-Ayton/Collins owner, and you’re in tank mode, now’s the time to throw those trade offers and have the Ayton/Collins owner throw in a high-to-mid-round pick. I’ve done it for both since I’m passing this season up in favor of next season. The desperation will net you nice trade bait come December, and a nice pick(s) for next season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly "personal reasons" qualifies a player for an INJ tag by yahoo..many examples of this including currently with Dennis Smith Jr. who has INJ status for being away from the team to grieve the loss of his stepmother.

I think most of us thought that it was the "missing games" aspect of a players situation that awarded an INJ designation by yahoo..since that appeared to be the way it worked and what makes the most sense for fantasy leagues.

Aparently suspensions are the only thing causing a player missing games that won't qualify for INJ status?

Last year I know Rondo and Ingram were given INJ status for I think it was two game suspensions. Was that because it was a fight suspension and not a drug suspension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, johnval1362 said:

I bet most leagues will be pissed off managers regarding that decision, but glad your league came to an agreement. Mid season changes are generally pretty taboo in money leagues unless you know the guys. The INJ tag should be there, and i think yahoo may change that, but nothing will change until next year if its up to yahoo. 

We are all friends and acquaintances so its probably easier to be fair than at a random money league (although we do play for a prize).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Yahoo players gotta take the good with the bad. Yahoo is the most liberal site ever when it comes to things like eligibility additions. On sites like ESPN and CBS, they require several STARTS at a position in order to gain extra eligibility. You Yahoo players are spoiled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dominator83 said:

You Yahoo players gotta take the good with the bad. Yahoo is the most liberal site ever when it comes to things like eligibility additions. On sites like ESPN and CBS, they require several STARTS at a position in order to gain extra eligibility. You Yahoo players are spoiled

It's a free country bro you can use Yahoo too if you love it so much 

  • Haha 1

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...