Commish Ruling (Read 202 times)

[Bobby]

The “Bull Rule”

History:

The addition of 2 players to the roster during the season has been with us since the beginning of this league, the 2004 season. Since the addition was not allowed until the season started, opening day was the deadline. When the League Constitution was written in 2005, a specific written deadline was set.

Recent Events:

The Red Sox had a player (Gomes) listed as waived and paying as opening day approached. No one claimed him and no one started a bid thread. He could have been reclaimed by the Bosox before opening day and another player waived, but was not. Before the Red Sox could reclaim him on opening day, another owner started a bid thread and the 561st most valuable fantasy player (14x40=560) was lost. A strategic mistake or a victim to that insidious clock deadline? The opening day clock had never been disparaged before, but it is now under fire. So unfair it is, the threat to leave the league has been made.

As Commish:

First, let me confess that I cannot muster any sympathy for a team losing a player that has been waived. I waive players will the full knowledge that I may not be able to reclaim them. The opening day clock was not identified as unfair until after the fact. I acknowledge all owners are on different time schedules. I responded the first day that this issue has a simple fix. Changing the time of day does not solve anything. If midnight is unfair, so is noon and any other time.

The solution I posted is to just eliminate the opening day clock. Fair to all. West coast, east coast, no coast would not matter. No additional roster spots during the season. Add a player, waive a player. Problem solved. The roster limit in March is the same in August.

I further posted that 40 man rosters is in line with major league rosters. I think our league is stronger when the weaker teams have access to more players. Do we let teams go after the 561st player or limit them to go after the 589th?

As confusing the polls were, no clear favorite between 40 and 42 emerged here.


Ruling:

Since the opening day clock is considered unfair, any time will be unfair.

Beginning with the 2012 season:
1. Rosters will no longer expand during the season.
2. The upper roster limit will be 40 at all times.
3. The minimum will remain at 38.


Express your displeasure at these rulings below. A call to replace the Commish may also be made below (no hard feelings). After all, 561 or 589 may be too big an issue to let go.

Threats to quit due to the unfairness of the league rules, even if they apply to everyone, are always interesting.

Side note: We had a rule change in fantasy football a week before the trade deadline (I am not the Commish) this past season. Not a single objection was made. Trades were made. When a team was eliminated in the playoffs, 5 weeks later, he suddenly felt the rule was unfair and threatened to leave the league. Gomes was déjà vu for me.

[bosox]

For me 40/41/42 on a roster means nothing,no difference,so i am fine with any number,i am sure others will disagree.

The issue was not Gomes,but that the time difference was an advantage to some over others.
If a team liked a player on waivers he could bid him anytime,the fact it was once the rosters expanded proved a time difference caused the advantage.

A level playing field is a must in any league and when it is split up almost evenly between east/west coast there must be no advantages for anyone.

something small or relatively insignificant now had possibilities of being much bigger or problematic later,just like the Papi Rule,and i was not
into some paying the price and others not.

I was prepared to go with whatever results came out of the discussions
and whatever was decided,so i am fine with the Commish ruling.

[Deleted]

Always good with whatever commish

No sweat

[Deleted]

Well put Commish. I am good with it.

[lewjo]

I am impressed!

I will miss 41 and 42, and am presently looking for help with my addiction for drafting and hanging onto marginal players in the 580 range.

(Although my hunches about Harang, Berkman etc have been proven correct)

Well spoken Bobby - thanks!

[hawkeye5]

have nothing to complain about. My whole team sucks.

[johnnybravo]

Figured I'd throw my comment here as it seemed more appropriate. I've always understood the roster limit to be a plus 1 since an owner can always waive a player to get into roster count compliance, whereas the $300 cap is a hard number. Yes, the Brew Crew could make a trade to acquire the cap room to accommodate Thornton, but it should be done before hand and not after Thornton is signed. Allowing teams to exceed the $$ cap in process would make the math a bear to monitor for all of us.

[bosox]

I agree with Bravo here.

waiving a player is done right away and a spot cleared.
but spending cash you do not have even in a waiver claim cannot be done.

what you have to spend is a hard cap number and not flexible.

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

Jul 21, 2011 20:01:58 GMT -8 @johnnybravo said:

Figured I'd throw my comment here as it seemed more appropriate. I've always understood the roster limit to be a plus 1 since an owner can always waive a player to get into roster count compliance, whereas the $300 cap is a hard number. Yes, the Brew Crew could make a trade to acquire the cap room to accommodate Thornton, but it should be done before hand and not after Thornton is signed. Allowing teams to exceed the $$ cap in process would make the math a bear to monitor for all of us.

The issue is I had time to sign Plouffe ... Thornton's time ended at 48 hours but Plouffe still had time before he was considered a bid who been deserted ... that was my trade window and I had one actual discussion occuring whic could put the Brewers payroll in complaince.

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

Jul 21, 2011 20:06:44 GMT -8 @bosox said:

I agree with Bravo here.

waiving a player is done right away and a spot cleared.
but spending cash you do not have even in a waiver claim cannot be done.

what you have to spend is a hard cap number and not flexible.

Hypothetically I could have still traded say Perry ($5) for Carmona ($3) after signing Thornton at the end of his 48 hour waiver period but before I had to sign Plouffe and the money (Brewers payroll) would have been fine ... the premature Commish ruling post took this opprtunity away ...

I bid on Thornton based on Bobby's earlier ruling on Worley figuring I would either cancel prospect contracts (which I was properly reminded I couldn't) or make a trade during my allotted time.

[Bobby]

A. My ruling on Worley had nothing to do with money, it had to do with roster spots, as we have never waived a player (when at max roster) when making a claim. (We will discuss this issue later).

B. My post was about money and money only. Just as you cannot bid without the cash, you cannot claim without the cash. There is no credit line here.

C. When I posted the Brewers claim lacked the cash, the waiver period was still active. The Brewers still had 8 1/2 hours after that to clear the CAP and post a legal claim. And any other owner could make a claim in the time left.

D. My second post, that the thread was over, was when there was no legal claim made in the 48 hours.

E. Plouffe's only relevance in this issue, is the $5 commitment the Brewers had.

F. Which of my posts was "pulling the trigger too quick"? The post saying the Brewers lacked the CAP, which they did, or the post saying the 48 hours was over, which it was.

G. And finally, I'll make a wild guess that I saved the Brewers a bunch of cash.

H. Your welcome

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

Jul 22, 2011 2:53:49 GMT -8 Bobby said:

A. My ruling on Worley had nothing to do with money, it had to do with roster spots, as we have never waived a player (when at max roster) when making a claim. (We will discuss this issue later).

So this statement ..."claims have never counted toward your total as you can be beaten by a higher waiver priority as in this case. " ... is purely about roster slots and not cash. Clear as mud.

I continue to respect Bobby as Commish and believe he has run a good league in a sound and fair manner. This waiver area, however, is getting murky ... IMO the commish should have said nothing publically until there was a time limit up ... either Thornton's 48 hours or Plouffe's so-called adbandoned bid clock as neither was final and there was no actual cash issue as the waiver had not been settled - again see Booby's earlier ruling in the Worley situation: claims have never counted toward your total as you can be beaten by a higher waiver priority ...

[bosox]

I see Bobby is correct in the timing.
When it was first ruled there was still time to clear cash and reclaim.
When he declared the player ufa the clock was expired.

He actually gave you time to do something when the claim was overuled so rather than say premature i would say gave fair warning and a chance to make a deal and claim again.

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

Jul 22, 2011 5:55:42 GMT -8 @bosox said:

I see Bobby is correct in the timing.
When it was first ruled there was still time to clear cash and reclaim.
When he declared the player ufa the clock was expired.

He actually gave you time to do something when the claim was overuled so rather than say premature i would say gave fair warning and a chance to make a deal and claim again.

The trade environment is changed dramatically when it appears a trade has to be made then a trade is merely being made ... when a commish makes a public ruling before the time an actual timeline is at its end, it is premature.

As a sidenote, it will be interesting to see if all waiver signings are to henceforth held to a strict 48 hour clock.

[JimB (as in Brewers)]

This is the likely last I will have to say on this particular situation (Waiver, re; Worley and Thornton).

1. I do not think Bobby did anything malicious - I simply disagree with the timing of the public ruling by the commish. [There is a difference between a warning or advice from a commish - or an other owner for that matter and a public edict by a commish. I have offered advice to other owners in a PM and received advice in the form of a PM. That was not the case here.]

2. I, and at least one other owner, do not believe the waiver rules, as applied in the Worley and Thornton situations (i.e., claims have never counted toward your total as you can be beaten by a higher waiver priority ...) , are nearly as clear as apparently Bobby, Bravo and BoSox do - the B boys ... ;-).

3. I can respectfully disagree with a good commish and still have respect for the commish.