|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 23, 2013 19:38:50 GMT -5
Why in God's name is the Commissioner picking and choosing what to do? Matt Read was dropped and is a Minor Leaguer making him Waiver eligible. Should he go unclaimed only then can he be returned to Minnesota's farm team. Why are you manually putting him back on his team? This is an abuse of power and a workaround of the rules in place. This also puts greater focus on Matt Read. This is completely unacceptable, even if it's reversed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Feb 23, 2013 22:32:02 GMT -5
Minnesota is a new GM that made a mistake on age. I don't see anything wrong with one do over. I know I got one in my first week as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 23, 2013 23:26:06 GMT -5
I guess if you need a 'do over' it should be permitted? I never needed, nor was I offered, any 'do overs'. My team suffered possibly the biggest loss of any in NAFHL history with the death of Alexei Cherepanov, my 2nd Overall Entry Pick. Akin to losing Matt Duchene (2nd Overall), Tyler Seguin (2nd Overall), Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (2nd Overall), or Alex Galchenyuk (2nd Overall). I didn't get any 'do over' or compensation for something legit so why should this type of clear infraction be permitted? This isn't some kind of foggy rule with interpretation. If you're coming into this league you should have read the manual front to back, back to front before being given the keys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Feb 24, 2013 0:07:12 GMT -5
K whoa a guy passing away should never be an example have more respect. A new GM has to take in and learn a lot in a short period of time. With how in depth our league is this is a minor minor oversight. Stop being such a hard ass. You have been around since the begging of this league correct? You have the best team "best in the world" this shouldn't matter to you.
A GM taking over a team in a keeper fantasy league this in depth deserves a chance to compete. This is such a small thing and I am sure will not happen again. Could have happened to anyone especially since Read had 24/79 beside his name prior to this misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 24, 2013 0:17:56 GMT -5
Matt Read was incorrectly labeled on both the Minnesota Wild roster and the Unavailable Players List as being 24 years old and a prospect. Assuming these numbers were correct, Glenn sent Read to the farm thinking he would clear without having to test waivers. It was only after the fact that I noticed the mistake and subsequently informed Glenn, corrected the typo, and reversed the transaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 24, 2013 0:28:16 GMT -5
A guy passing away is an example of a loss though, a legit, tragic, unfathomable loss. How am I being insensitive? You should probably rethink your initial reaction. If Glenn wants a 'do over' because he's 'new' that's fine. Though it's already a black mark on his legacy and if he had any backbone whatsoever he'd follow the rules in place regardless of a misstep. Learn from it, move on, right Tyler? Mark had an entire 'investigation' put up against him and this is swept under the rug instantly. You voted against Mark, as did Glenn. This is a similar situation if not more glaring (B&W). Glenn gets a pass because he's new? Mark doesn't because he's a veteran? Mark's infraction was with a new rule. Glenn's infraction was with a rule put in place since the league's inception (2006). It's a slippery slope we trod with little consistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 24, 2013 0:30:47 GMT -5
Matt Read was incorrectly labeled on both the Minnesota Wild roster and the Unavailable Players List as being 24 years old and a prospect. Assuming these numbers were correct, Glenn sent Read to the farm thinking he would clear without having to test waivers. It was only after the fact that I noticed the mistake and subsequently informed Glenn, corrected the typo, and reversed the transaction. Was Matt Read's birth year incorrectly labeled in the Yahoo Database? How about NHL.com? HockeysFuture? etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 24, 2013 1:43:03 GMT -5
Could have happened to anyone especially since Read had 24/79 beside his name prior to this misunderstanding. Tyler, Galchenyuk was listed as 18/0 besides his name on my roster page. In fact, he's still listed as 18/0 on Carolina's roster page. Does that mean he's still eligible for the development team? Yet, I get that player poached from me... I'm not saying take Matt Read from Glenn, but show a little consistency. In one situation you're hard line for the rules, in another you're quick to bend them. I could summarize that you think one person made an honest mistake while the other was lazy & deserves punishment. The truth is neither Glenn nor I am lazy, but I am the one being judged as a "poor" GM for not memorizing all of my player's games played. It doesn't seem fair considering Glenn read the same rules I did, yet I'm getting castrated in my situation. How can you judge what is virtually the same mistake in two completely different ways? Glenn is a new GM, but shouldn't the rules be that much fresher in his mind since he just recently joined / read them? |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 24, 2013 3:56:56 GMT -5
N) Any "minor leaguer" transaction may be nullified and subsequently reversed prior to and after an opposing manager has made a waiver claim if the original owner of the minor leaguer (prior to the waiver claim) unknowingly or accidentally sends the minor leaguer in question to the farm. Each "minor leaguer" will be returned to its owner's main roster and not to its respective farm team.
That should be pretty clear. Even by Boston's standards of rule understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 24, 2013 5:53:47 GMT -5
That 'rule' is utter nonsense. This transaction allowed Glenn to drop Matt Read (DTD) earlier than he should have, allowing him to pick up Gabriel Landeskog for his game the next day. I guess anybody can claim 'ignorance' and get away with it. Good to know, I'll keep that in my back pocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 24, 2013 6:35:47 GMT -5
That 'rule' is utter nonsense. This transaction allowed Glenn to drop Matt Read (DTD) earlier than he should have, allowing him to pick up Gabriel Landeskog for his game the next day. I guess anybody can claim 'ignorance' and get away with it. Good to know, I'll keep that in my back pocket. Exactly the kind of thing to say I expected from the guy who's arguing the ethical side of things in the Boston vs Carolina thread. Oh the irony. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 24, 2013 6:40:59 GMT -5
I said I'll keep that beauty in my back pocket.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 24, 2013 10:08:49 GMT -5
Markus, do you know how that rule was made? When someone made that mistake & the player was put back on the original owner's team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 24, 2013 10:34:35 GMT -5
Could have happened to anyone especially since Read had 24/79 beside his name prior to this misunderstanding. Tyler, Galchenyuk was listed as 18/0 besides his name on my roster page. In fact, he's still listed as 18/0 on Carolina's roster page. Does that mean he's still eligible for the development team? Yet, I get that player poached from me... I'm not saying take Matt Read from Glenn, but show a little consistency. In one situation you're hard line for the rules, in another you're quick to bend them. I could summarize that you think one person made an honest mistake while the other was lazy & deserves punishment. The truth is neither Glenn nor I am lazy, but I am the one being judged as a "poor" GM for not memorizing all of my player's games played. It doesn't seem fair considering Glenn read the same rules I did, yet I'm getting castrated in my situation. How can you judge what is virtually the same mistake in two completely different ways? Glenn is a new GM, but shouldn't the rules be that much fresher in his mind since he just recently joined / read them? There really isn't anything to debate here. The difference between Galchenyuk and Read is that Galchenyuk is an issue of GAMES PLAYED (it is explicitly stated in the rulebook that players can lose prospect/minor leaguer eligibility during the year based on this) whereas Read is an instance of (incorrectly labeled on my part) AGE. Section 8, Rule E: It is reasonable to assume that any person is, in good faith, going to trust what is written on an official roster page AND an official unavailable players list because these types of things are supposed to hold authority. However, in this instance, there was an honest oversight on my part (no fault to Glenn), that resulted in the situation we are discussing now. And even if this were not the case, as Markus has pointed out, the ridiculous Section 8, Rule N still exists: Furthermore, Mark, if you bothered to read my findings concerning the Galchenyuk situation, you would know that I am not "quick to castrate" anyone, but rather that I ruled in your favor and voted to return Galchenyuk to your roster. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Feb 24, 2013 10:34:45 GMT -5
This is all getting ridiculous and taking away from the fun of fantasy hockey. Neither of these effect my roster and that's all I am going to worry about from here out make whatever decisions you want in these cases I follow the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 24, 2013 10:59:50 GMT -5
And even if this were not the case, as Markus has pointed out, the ridiculous Section 8, Rule N still exists: I find it rather amusing that you call this rule 'ridiculous' when you were the one to create the rule and add it to the rulebook with no league vote as far as I'm aware. Why have all these added pieces been thrown into the rulebook anyway? Anyway, beauty, pocket, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 24, 2013 11:10:01 GMT -5
And even if this were not the case, as Markus has pointed out, the ridiculous Section 8, Rule N still exists: I find it rather amusing that you call this rule 'ridiculous' when you were the one to create the rule and add it to the rulebook with no league vote as far as I'm aware. Why have all these added pieces been thrown into the rulebook anyway? Anyway, beauty, pocket, etc. Are you kidding me? I was VEHEMENTLY opposed to this rule. And I still am. It is the worst rule to ever be included in any fantasy league, ever. nafhl2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=awards&action=display&thread=525You, in fact, were the one who voted in support of the rule change. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 24, 2013 11:13:38 GMT -5
I find it rather amusing that you call this rule 'ridiculous' when you were the one to create the rule and add it to the rulebook with no league vote as far as I'm aware. Why have all these added pieces been thrown into the rulebook anyway? Anyway, beauty, pocket, etc. Are you kidding me? I was VEHEMENTLY opposed to this rule. And I still am. It is the worst rule to ever be included in any fantasy league, ever. nafhl2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=awards&action=display&thread=525You, in fact, were the one who voted in support of the rule change. You were being a little overbearing there with the choices, I even detailed it, here's what I said: I'm voting Calgary. I don't find these added stipulations to each side to be important to this vote. I don't agree wholly with either. I don't think there should be leniency in every instance, but since this had to do with goalies and the ambiguity in the rules behind 'experience' I felt it could be given the benefit of the doubt. The rules should be amended. Robyn's intentions were made clear. We're protecting the league's franchises, precedent in the past had been set, and it only helps the league and its competitiveness if the Calgary franchise keeps Mason. This is the reasoning behind my vote. I'm not sure why you did it in this way, it wasn't even 'official'. There was confusion with 'experience' (Games Played, Games Started), nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 24, 2013 11:14:01 GMT -5
Furthermore, Mark, if you bothered to read my findings concerning the Galchenyuk situation, you would know that I am not "quick to castrate" anyone, but rather that I ruled in your favor and voted to return Galchenyuk to your roster. I'm not blasting you. You're doing your job as commish, so I can't fault you. It just seems to be a larger faction in the league is jumping on my case & letting this one slide under the rug because of an eligibility oversight by a GM. The only difference is that this mistake was made before & a rule already exists to protect the accident with that player going back to the original team. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 24, 2013 11:20:16 GMT -5
This is all getting ridiculous and taking away from the fun of fantasy hockey. Neither of these effect my roster and that's all I am going to worry about from here out make whatever decisions you want in these cases I follow the rules. The rules always effect your roster. Either now or in the future. The rules are fluid b/c they can always be amended. It's like how the Constitution has amendments. If you don't think the rules should be changed from time to time, it's like taking away all the amendments (right to bear arms, women voting, free speech, etc). Sometimes, issues come up that need to be addressed & changed for the better. Say what you will, but you are included in these discussions because you voted & your vote affects things... like the rights to a prospect belonging to which team. |
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.