Team Roster Page Question

[Mark - Bruins]

I was looking at some team rosters and I noticed that a few names are marked in red text instead of the normal black text. To me, this seems like its randomly done because I can't decipher a pattern between players who have their names in red and those in black. Does anyone know why some players are written in red and others are in black?

[Hawks]

Red I believe is showing how many players over the roster limit your team is come regular season. as to how Derreck selects which players to highlight in his crazy skull....No clue. I would think it would be the last players to be drafted to ur team...but I've had penner for almost a month...and he hilighted him....no i dea

[Derrick - Senators]

A player is highlighted in red to show a roster violation. The selection of the player is completely random, with one side note. Normally, the player highlighted is a prospect or minor leaguer. This is because they have farm eligibility and in theory would be the easiest to move in solving the problem. If there arent any prospects or minor leaguers available I'll just take the last drafted player, or randomly select a player; sometimes this is the case no matter what. If a team forgets or fails to meet roster requirements by the "final roster submission" deadline, this/these will be the players forfeited by default in order for said team to remain within roster limitations.

one more thing that i think goes without saying, but i feel as though i should post a reminder. If you are in roster violation, you will not be able to participate in the annual "free agent signing" frenzy.

[patriot0103]

I didn't vote, because I couldn't find the choice that said

"I'm just too fucking dumb to figure it out, so I'm going to make a completely unrelated poll to show the piss poor insults I can come up with"

Then again, there are a lot of choices. Maybe I'm just cixelsyd and elitterit and can't find it.

[Nos - Sharks]

admin said:

Normally, the player highlighted is a prospect or minor leaguer. This is because they have farm eligibility and in theory would be the easiest to move in solving the problem.

admin said:

If a team forgets or fails to meet roster requirements by the "final roster submission" deadline, this/these will be the players forfeited by default in order for said team to remain within roster limitations.

So this explains why Crosby and Luongo are in red. Solid.

[Mark - Bruins]

patriot0103 said:

I didn't vote, because I couldn't find the choice that said

"I'm just too fucking dumb to figure it out, so I'm going to make a completely unrelated poll to show the piss poor insults I can come up with"

Then again, there are a lot of choices. Maybe I'm just cixelsyd and elitterit and can't find it.

I thought some of them were good. Hey, you can't hit a home run on every swing, right? Sometimes a double is all you need.

[Derrick - Senators]

nossharks said:

admin said:

Normally, the player highlighted is a prospect or minor leaguer. This is because they have farm eligibility and in theory would be the easiest to move in solving the problem.

admin said:

If a team forgets or fails to meet roster requirements by the "final roster submission" deadline, this/these will be the players forfeited by default in order for said team to remain within roster limitations.

So this explains why Crosby and Luongo are in red. Solid.

Precisely.

[patriot0103]

That is pretty retarded that you'd lose the players that you "randomly" choose to put in red.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

patriot0103 said:

That is pretty retarded that you'd lose the players that you "randomly" choose to put in red.

What else would happen? The manager gets to choose beforehand. If they dick around what else is supposed to happen? Have the manager choose? Like they should have done already?

[Nos - Sharks]

turcopolis said:

What else would happen? The manager gets to choose beforehand. If they dick around what else is supposed to happen? Have the manager choose? Like they should have done already?

It's retarded because highly ranked players are being put in red. Players that are obvious keepers. If anything the players highlighted should be the players that put your team over the limit, i.e. from the draft. That would actually make sense.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

Well if you're either dumb or inactive enough to not make the cuts yourself then too bad so sad i say. It isn't something that should even be an issue.

[Chris - Capitals]

Suprisingly enough I agree with Phil

[Nos - Sharks]

turcopolis said:

Well if you're either dumb or inactive enough to not make the cuts yourself then too bad so sad i say. It isn't something that should even be an issue.

Do you not understand that this would affect the entire league and not just the manager losing the players? If players like Crosby, Luongo, and now Lecavalier would be released into the free agency pool it would become a lottery to sign them, hardly fair. Even looking past that the system should be a constant based around something solid and not "random" or under the discretion of the Commish. It should make sense.

[patriot0103]

nossharks said:

turcopolis said:

What else would happen? The manager gets to choose beforehand. If they dick around what else is supposed to happen? Have the manager choose? Like they should have done already?

It's retarded because highly ranked players are being put in red. Players that are obvious keepers. If anything the players highlighted should be the players that put your team over the limit, i.e. from the draft. That would actually make sense.

I'm with Nos on this one. It shouldn't essentially be Derrick's pick on who you lose. It's not like he's going to put Ovechkin in red on his roster (Although now he might, just for the sake of argument). I know it shouldn't be an issue, but it should be a concrete rule, not just anyone he feels like changing the color of the font.

If Nos committed a roster violation and Crosby is released, do you realize how pissed everyone would get when waiver priority determines a new Crosby owner?

Why not just make it something simple, like the players that were added beyond the limit are the one's in red.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

patriot0103 said:

nossharks said:

It's retarded because highly ranked players are being put in red. Players that are obvious keepers. If anything the players highlighted should be the players that put your team over the limit, i.e. from the draft. That would actually make sense.

I'm with Nos on this one. It shouldn't essentially be Derrick's pick on who you lose. It's not like he's going to put Ovechkin in red on his roster (Although now he might, just for the sake of argument). I know it shouldn't be an issue, but it should be a concrete rule, not just anyone he feels like changing the color of the font.

If Nos committed a roster violation and Crosby is released, do you realize how pissed everyone would get when waiver priority determines a new Crosby owner?

Why not just make it something simple, like the players that were added beyond the limit are the one's in red.

It isnt' Derrick's choice is the thing. This isn't something that's just going to happen one day without your knowledge. Final Roster Submission isn't until Sept. 19th. Thats a fucking month away. If anything, this is giving you a little incentive to keep up on your responsibilities.

[Hawks]

I'm with NOS on this one.... Granted it shouldn't be an issue, but it should be the last added players to put you over roster limit...not whoever Derrick decides to highlight

[Derrick - Senators]

Regardless of who is highlighted and who isnt, the team is still in roster violation and can not participate in the yahoo league until a maximum of 19 players on each roster is reached. Therefore, waiver priority is not an issue either.

I trust that each manager is active and aware enough to handle each situation and responsibility accordingly. If in over a months time you arent able to make the necessary roster adjustments, then something is wrong. The red highlighted players are more of a reminder to let you know who is and who isnt (team) in roster violation. It is not meant to be taken personally, something to cry over, or start a big fuss.

With that said it's scenario time. Take Toronto for example. It comes time for me to put the final rosters up on Yahoo to start the season. Andrew "forgets" he is in roster violation so I drop Dan Cloutier and Jason Arnott for him because those are the "last people he drafted." Meanwhile Andrei Taratukhin and Harrison Reed sit firmly on his starting roster, ready to give it their all this upcoming fantasy season. I'm sure that would just tickle Andrew pink.

It's not an issue now and it wont be an issue later. If people recognize this (Brad) then there isn't a need for the qualifier "...but it should be the last players added." If it isnt an issue it isnt a issue. It's not "my choice" and "it's not the last player drafted." It is what it is. A reminder. Stop nitpicking at every minute detail trying to start trouble.

[patriot0103]

admin said:

It's not "my choice"

It's not. Then what is it? You must be using a random number generator. Or maybe [randomplayerhighlightred]Roster listed[/randomplayerhighlightred]. I gotta try that code.

Fact is, something objective would be better. That's all.

And that scenario you gave is flawed, try giving me a scenario for who you have on Nos' team...so if he did it, he'd really lose Luongo, Crosby, or Lecav? That's just stupid...even if it shouldn't be an issue, it's a dumb way to do it and would be easy to change for an objective method.

[Andrew]

admin said:

If it isnt an issue it isnt a issue. It is what it is. A reminder. Stop nitpicking at every minute detail trying to start trouble.

There should be a better system. "If it isn't an issue, it isn't an issue" is a bad philosophy. Personal things can come up and in some circumstances you can't reach a computer, so players like Crosby etc. being dropped because of that would be a huge issue. Maybe it was a just a fun way to mess with Nos, but you couldn't actually go through with it. Dropping the last player drafted is a better way to work things. Me losing Arnott and Cloutier (which I don't intend to do obviously) would not be as devastating as Nos losing his top three players.

[Derrick - Senators]

It's not. Then what is it? You must be using a random number generator. Or maybe [randomplayerhighlightred]Roster listed[/randomplayerhighlightred]. I gotta try that code.

Fact is, something objective would be better. That's all.

And that scenario you gave is flawed, try giving me a scenario for who you have on Nos' team...so if he did it, he'd really lose Luongo, Crosby, or Lecav? That's just stupid...even if it shouldn't be an issue, it's a dumb way to do it and would be easy to change for an objective method.

Since you seem to have trouble comprehending I'll spell it out for you.

IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE YOUR TEAM, JUST AS IT IS NOT MY DUTY TO "BABYSIT" AND CONSTANTLY REMIND YOU OF THE RULES AND/OR VIOLATIONS.

If a manager chooses to ignore or fails to adhere to the rules and regulations placed before them, then THEY ARE CHOOSING to forfeit their managerial right(s) for the matter at hand. As commissioner, by default, it then becomes my responsibility.

I am not forcing any player to be dropped from any team's roster, nor am I making it impossible for the problem to be solved.

As I said, the red highlighting is just a REMINDER. R-E-M-I-N-D-E-R. Who cares why I have certain players highlighted on certain teams? Really it's none of your business. Be it because they were selected randomly, they were the last players drafted, or I just flat out don't like them. It doesnt matter. Its only an issue because youre making it one. Just as easily as it would be to implement an "objective method," it is something that can be dealt with even easier. "The manager drops/trades/sends down player x to meet roster requirements." end of story.

Jesus, every thread around here is turning into a "Civil Rights" struggle. I dont know which one of you is worse.

Also, on the cake.....do you want "pity party" hyphenated or no?