|
|
Post by Seattle Seahawks (Cecil) on Oct 11, 2017 9:29:32 GMT -5
I'm fine with Chris doing this as long as I don't get called out for doing the same thing later on. Hogan wasn't the starter when he acquired him. There shouldn't be a problem. He hasn't yet acquired him. His bid should be invalidated. Bidding process is not yet complete. If he had officially acquired him before the announcement then there would not be a problem. That is not the case with Hogan. |
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Oct 11, 2017 9:40:50 GMT -5
Going by the letter of the law there’s no issue. If you want to change the rule during the offseason then that should be up for discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 11:15:10 GMT -5
I did the same last year but was under the impression I needed to trade one when Chris came to me being that’s why I traded. I thought under the rules I needed to trade one at the time being the reason why I traded Kap at the time. I just wanted to get a clear cut answer because I believe every time should own at least one qb. So last year when Chris approached me saying what I quoted earlier I believed at the time he was telling me we more or less need to do something for the interest of fairness to the League.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 11:20:34 GMT -5
Well here's the thing Charlie, at least in this situation, Hogan hasn't yet been named the starter in any official capacity, and is still listed as 2nd string per Rotoworld, which is the way the rule is written. So even if we applied the rule that we haven't been enforcing, that wouldn't violate that rule. And we've always treated Week 1 differently than mid-season to protect owners from being forced to drop or trade players for them being one-week starters due to injury or temporary benching. That wouldn't make for a good fantasy environment. People would be having to drop and sign players all the time on that basis. Which is why we don't do that. As for ATL last week, he still only had one starter by your definition (Manuel), as Glennon was benched. But the bigger issue is that he didn't start his one starter last week. That's the concerning part I honestly could care less if you pick him up or not. The only thing I want outta this is in the rules for it to be more defined so we don’t end up in this situation. And I just hope people are paying attention to roster moves because I know as soon as Chicago lost that game the week before they announced right away they were switching qbs. And they said Carr would at least miss 2 weeks so I don’t understand why he didn’t make the switch and cost himself a win. I also brought this up cause I’m playing someone this week with two starting qbs and I wanted to know the term. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Oct 11, 2017 11:29:46 GMT -5
Well here's the thing Charlie, at least in this situation, Hogan hasn't yet been named the starter in any official capacity, and is still listed as 2nd string per Rotoworld, which is the way the rule is written. So even if we applied the rule that we haven't been enforcing, that wouldn't violate that rule. And we've always treated Week 1 differently than mid-season to protect owners from being forced to drop or trade players for them being one-week starters due to injury or temporary benching. That wouldn't make for a good fantasy environment. People would be having to drop and sign players all the time on that basis. Which is why we don't do that. As for ATL last week, he still only had one starter by your definition (Manuel), as Glennon was benched. But the bigger issue is that he didn't start his one starter last week. That's the concerning part I honestly could care less if you pick him up or not. The only thing I want outta this is in the rules for it to be more defined so we don’t end up in this situation. And I just hope people are paying attention to roster moves because I know as soon as Chicago lost that game the week before they announced right away they were switching qbs. And they said Carr would at least miss 2 weeks so I don’t understand why he didn’t make the switch and cost himself a win. I also brought this up cause I’m playing someone this week with two starting qbs and I wanted to know the term. Absolutely. Agreed about the lineup issue. That was an easy one to fix. On the trading of QBs though, the way we've enforced it post-Mike is that it's different Week 1 and let's say any other week (though I think the league would certainly prefer or even expect a team without a starter or with two starters to acquire/rid themselves of one if it happened Week 2 for example). The point is, it's an imaginary cut off, and it's not well-defined (probably for a reason; because it's hard to define), but it's definitely something worth looking at in the off-season, and every off-season to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Seahawks (Cecil) on Oct 11, 2017 12:15:22 GMT -5
Chris. You know this is bs. Shameful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Oct 11, 2017 12:26:46 GMT -5
Chris. You know this is bs. Shameful. I really don't understand how it is man. We have allowed it in the past, so there's precedent. I'm hardly the first one to do it and I don't see why I should be the first punished for it when it's never been enforced that way since I've been a LM. But even if we do enforce it for the first time, I don't see why we should not enforce it in the way it's written. That's the only standard we have. Going by anything else would just be making it up as we go along. Is this pushing the envelope? You could argue that, just as you could argue it was every time it has happened previously, or every time a team has traded for a second starter. It was equally gray area. But I certainly don't understand why this is all coming up now and not when it happened before. I don't believe in witch hunts, but I also don't understand why I should pay the penance for this when other people have done it in the past under similar or the exact same circumstances and not suffered any recourse. If the rule needs to be rewritten, then we should do that. But as of right now, that is the rule, and I think it's really clear that I'm not in violation of it, and that neither were those parties that did it before me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 12:49:24 GMT -5
Just feel we need something a little more clear so we wouldnt have to deal with this issue again. AKA what Tray From the rams said last year. maybe revist this
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Oct 11, 2017 13:01:49 GMT -5
Just feel we need something a little more clear so we wouldnt have to deal with this issue again. AKA what Tray From the rams said last year. maybe revist this I've been saying this for years. The problem is, when is the deadline? We can't compel a team to keep a starting QB every week, all year long, and we shouldn't punish forward-thinking owners who draft or sign a QB who ends up starting sooner than they thought they might've. It's unpredictable, and we don't want to prey upon that factor and make it impossible or no fun here. That's why it's always been, at least post-Mike, every team HAS TO have a starter Week 1. Beyond that? It's never been clear for the reasons I listed above. And it's nigh-impossible to even say who is an actual starter beyond Week 1 if teams like the Browns continue to flip-flop their "starting" QBs around mid-game and game-to-game. I would like to think that nobody with the mindset or intentionally tanking would try to offload a starter Week 2 in an attempt to do so, but right now, with the rules the way they are, I don't know that we could prevent it either. That's not to say the overreaction in response to that problem (requiring that every team have a starting QB EVERY week, something that may not even be possible if things happen after transaction windows close) is any better. But it definitely deserves to be looked at for future to see if we can reach any compromise in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Seahawks (Cecil) on Oct 11, 2017 14:26:31 GMT -5
You are intentionally trying to acquire a 2nd known starter. That is the problem. If he was a known backup then no problem he is not a backup though. He is a known starter when you already have one. If you acquired him as a backup then becomes a starter then still no problem. Good job on you in that situation. That is not the case here. You have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, all for Kevin Hogan. Good job on you for that. I feel your bid should be nullified since he is a known starter who has been announced as the new starter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Oct 11, 2017 15:23:39 GMT -5
You are intentionally trying to acquire a 2nd known starter. That is the problem. If he was a known backup then no problem he is not a backup though. He is a known starter when you already have one. If you acquired him as a backup then becomes a starter then still no problem. Good job on you in that situation. That is not the case here. You have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, all for Kevin Hogan. Good job on you for that. I feel your bid should be nullified since he is a known starter who has been announced as the new starter. So how is that different than trading for one? If the issue is acquiring a second starter, something that you have done yourself in the past (In a move that was also legal only because it wasn't illegal) and not how it's done, how is that different from what you did? I'm not saying either of us were wrong in doing so, but you also knew RGIII was a starter when you traded for him. So did I when I approved and processed that trade. Was it exploiting a loophole that still hasn't been closed in the league rules? Again, I think you can make that argument, just like you can make the argument that I'm doing that here. But I don't think that we should all of the sudden shut that door for this one case of several for, I don't know what the hell reason, selectively apply it to only me, and interpret the rule differently than we ever have. The rule is unclear, but where it is clear is that we go by Rotoworld depth charts, and I'm not really keen on taking shit for something I'm doing that other people have done and skirted for. It's no different than those situations. I don't know why we're still talking about this. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Oct 11, 2017 15:30:16 GMT -5
Also, FWIW, I once didn't get to start a QB on a week where someone picked up the lone remaining starter, and lost as a result. I don't see how allowing it then/punishing me (Even if inadvertently) with that interpretation of the rule, and then not allowing it now and punishing me for doing the thing that was allowed, makes any kind of logical sense. If we're looking for consistency in our rules and how we interpret them, this would be the opposite of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Seahawks (Cecil) on Oct 11, 2017 15:37:04 GMT -5
Chris, I know Hogan was one of your preseason lover boys and you still have a crush on him, but I think your allowing tgis fact blind you to what you are fighting for here. Your cred is completely zero in my eyes now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Oct 11, 2017 15:48:55 GMT -5
My two cents is to address it in the off-season and make a firm, no questions rule one way or the other. If we knew it was an issue last year (which I didn’t think it was, considering I did the same thing essentially, with absolutely 0% of this backlash) it should have been addressed before the season. We shouldn’t be trying to interpret things on the fly. The letter of the law states that if they aren’t starters on Rotoworld depth charts, then they are fair game. Whether that SHOULD be the rule is irrelevant in the middle of the season. It’s the rule that’s in place, for better or worse. The hostility towards Chris is ridiculous, and to say that he is making a big deal over Kevin Hogan is the pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills (Salvatore) on Oct 11, 2017 15:52:40 GMT -5
I thought the rule was that if you have a named starter you are not allowed to acquire another one. In fact im almost positive thats the way it was worded previous to the relocation. That should be the rule imo. If you have a starter you should not be allowed to acquire another. The only way im ok with it is say a bad team drafts a rookie whos waiting to start and gets the job at some point while they have a vet hold the spot. But if the rookie does starr they should have to move one, cut one in a timely matter or be penalized some how. Just my 2 cents
|
|
