never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut

Friday, January 20, 2006

omar's question

so everyone on the comments section said moacir's 'you keep the guy wherever he was drafted, no its, no buts' is great, but we already voted. it solves omar's problem, and it's what i wanted all along. so that's 4 of us, for sure - can we vote on that one again? other than mike carter, no one seems to have any strong feelings the other way...
here it is, cho.

Should all drafted players count at the round they were drafted at in a given year, in free agency, trades, injuries, &c?


Free polls from


Omar said...

but i dont want the rule to change. i just wanted to clear up a caveat. im not for sure anything.

Saud said...

I guess this is more of a nostalgia based league than a results oriented league - which is A-OK by me. I wonder if i can make a team entirely with guys who sport mustaches, like the 72 A's? Lets see, Jose Valentin, Palmeiro, Randy Johnson, Gary Sheffield...

carter said...

i don't think the poll makes sense. the issue, as omar raised it, is whether different rules apply when a player is drafted, cut, and then (a) resigned by the drafter and (b) signed by another team. Under the rule we have now, as i understand it, for (a) the player is kept at the round at which he was drafted. for (b), the player is kept at the lowest-nth round.

The "no" option clearly destroys this difference, by changing the result in (a) to equal the result in (b) above. The "yes" option also destroys this difference, I think, by changing the result in (b) to equal (a) [if "resign" means free agent pickup by anyone, not just the drafter].

I reject that these are the only options - most importantly, because the poll does not seem to allow us to maintain the current rule [unless "resign" is limited to the drafter, in which case the "yes" option just maintains the current rule - but i think that this construction is insensible].

Yes, I like law school. Finally, I refuse to vote in this poll, since I want to keep the current rule.

Omar said...

looks like law school is in fact working out for mike.

i agree with mike's synthesis. i voted to keep the rule only because i didnt want to vote yes.

i am beginning to think pete was right for deleting the post. i'm not a revoltionary socialist and have no interest in upending the agreed upon rules. i am more than willing to move forward with what we have agreed upon (by majority vote) but wanted to get some clarification as to a situation that could not have been addressed before the aforementioned rules were voted on. just because i dont like a result of the rules does not mean i dont agree with the rules.

if the choices are keep it as it is with the rule that if you draft a player and then drop him you have to take him back with the same draft spot OR everyone keeps their original draft spot then i'll go with door #1.

i honeslty don't think it will be impossible to police and if we all agree to trust one another the few times it does come up can be easily resolved.

Morcy said...

You, Omar, are definitely not a revolutionary if your position involves "policing" other citizens.

My solution involves not using the transaction wire for any evidentiary purpose. The only fax that matter are the draft and the rosta on the closing day of the seezun.

No policing. No secret courts. No desaparecidos.

Omar said...

the only problem with this poll is that as discussed with waiver wire, this was already ruled on. if we can't change to have a waiver wire, why can we change this rule?

almartin said...

because we are trying to make sure we don't break the league and ruin all the fun. planning. foresight.

Omar said...

i dont disagree and thats why i asked the question to begin with. why does it feel like everything i point out doesn't seem to be important till three-four days after i initially talk about it? i guess this is how jesus felt.

so about that waiver wire? anyone thinking its a good idea now?