FantasySharks.com

Once again, jam, your argument regarding the rigidity of the five RB limit doesn't stand scrutiny.

If the 5 RB limit is so important, why can RB be put on IR during the season?

I am serious, I can cut the players a week after the auction, pick them up during blind bid waivers and then stick both players on IR. I don't get why people aren't understanding this.

The only reason to force the owners to cut pup eligible players is o hurt the teams and make them cut a RB they wouldn't have to during the season.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

I don't think that it has ever been ruled on. The rules don't state this and nobody has ever questioned it, so we don't know what the rules were from the beginning.

We have heard your interpretations of the rules several times. I am not saying you are intentionally choosing against me or are biased, but I don't think you have any proof of what the rules were and therefore the league should vote on whether pup players are IR eligible.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

That is not the spirit of this league and defeats the purpose of a deep dynasty.

I would hate to be in that league.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

Sorry for all the posts, but I am on my phone and it is the only way to reply to different posts.

Couple of points...

1- teams regularly put players on IR if they were inactive on Sunday. Are you saying that they made illegal moves? I will gladly go through last year and drop every player illegally put on IR if that is what the rules stated.

2- similarly, are you saying that nobody is IR eligible this offseason? Should I give everyone a week to put players on active before they are cut?

If you are going to interpret the rules rigidly here, apply it equally.


3- I think your argument about there not being an IR report during the offseason helps my case, actually. The last IR report published, they were on ir. The next IR report published will be during training camp, and any pup players will be listed as inactive. Therefore IR eligible.


So either there is no IR during the offseason and every team is in violation or the training camp report is valid.


The basic concept I am advocating isn't keeping control of players to circumvent the laws. It is to protect teams that might be missing players for at least half the season. They should be able to participating in the auction without having a hurt player counting towards the limit.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

No worries about points - might help seperate things up a bit - just dont post n drive, mmmkay!

#1

If you re-read the IR rules youll see there is more to the bylaw than i posted - as much as youd like to go back and remove players that WERENT on the friday report to help you prove a point, youll see this eventuality was covered in the rules already Something you pointed out to me very early on when i queried the legality of a couple of IR moves if you recall:



So thats covered ...

#2

If you want to you can, ive got 5 on IR and im prepared for it and have planned accordingly for them to be active next year. So if youd like to, feel free as ive got as many on IR as you have AND i have a problem at WR which is similar to yours, though less severe (no room and rice is a PUP candidate)

Oar also has 5 on IR

Fact of the matter is we dont have to do anything ... all we have to do is comply with roster reqs when req'd, which is post draft/auction.

If you want to do it sooner? A matter of weeks makes no difference either way, and im fine with it if everyone else is

If like Oar was saying you can find ANY examples of this having happened since the inception of the league then youve completely proven your point and will solve everything Im honestly all for someone being able to prove definitively one way or the other. If you can find the smoking gun im with you 100%, till then it doesnt feel like its right

#3

We agree!!



There never is

But why, i hear you ask of course there is?? Really?!!

Whatre you going to do ...

Rush to the WW to stock up while noones looking? Its locked.
Start inelegible players in games against conference opponents? No games.
Hoard QBs?TE/WRs etc? You'll only have to drop them again pre-season and youve just telegraphed your "likes"

Players on or off the IR during the off-season? Its just "housekeeping".

Dont foget IR is an NFL term applicable for that years schedule: From roster cutdown through to the Superbowl. THATS IT. As soon as that schedules done, the player is no longer on IR - not till next roster cutdown. We agree, there is no IR during the off season Its why its not policed, its irrelevant.

There is NO competitive advantage or use for IR during the offseason - no need to police it, no need to enforce it, no need to do anything with it.
There IS however a clear competitive advantage after the draft and auction though in the preseason ...

And this is why it matters and why i dont believe the rules were intended to be open to translation this way

If it makes you feel any happier? Im fine with cutting 5 players, right now, tonight and moving my IR players into position.

As i understand it i dont have to (why? because the offseason has no use for IR) but i do in a matter of weeks really (why? because then IR becomes a factor that can be exploited for stashing auction and draft picks) so if you want 'em done today? Its be a bit like building a garage before you have a car, but if it prevents any problems - ill roll with it.


I think the compromise i put fwds earlier will probably please neither you nor oar, but it will resolve your concerns and his i think

I will just plan on cutting two RB and winning them at blind bids, put my RB on IR during whatever time period you and oar decree fits your style, and do exactly as I had planned to do.




None of your arguments prevent anyone from doing exactly what I am describing and having players on IR during the season. They just punish the owner with injuries.


Congratulations, you "win."

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

No i dont - and youre points rereading your posts talk about IR during the off-season, which is why mine do too

I always apologize sincerely when ive done it, so if ive mis read that Cy is talking about players being on IR during the off season please let me know - i have done it before (mis reading posts) so im not asking trying to be funny. I mean it.

FWIW, I have a simiar issue tho less severe ... Check my WR situation then tell me Sid Rice is definitely gonna be at camp.

I too have some awkward decisions that could be resolved by leaving him on IR. If we go the PUP route Broyles would be a hot draft add too as hed be straight on it.

Im just sorry about any & all disagreement this offseason as youre two of the best sharks in the tank

I'm not taking the time to look through the original threads to find out when this was discussed. It may have even been an im conversation between checo, lundy, among others. I do know that the idea was to ensure the position limits would be enforced in-season and when teams were being put together each off season with as little policing as possible from us. We thought ensuring compliance at time of auction and week-to-week in season was sufficient, probably needs some tweaks now with the draft being first now but that's a different issue. This specific issue hasn't been discussed at any point in this league because no one has ever tried to keep IR players before. I figured it was because everyone was on the same page that we could only keep X players per position. Apparently I'm wrong. I'm all for someone re-writing the rules so it's more clear or voting for a rule change if enough people think players should be stashed on IR at time of keepers, but regardless when it comes to keepers for this off season players can not be kept on the IR at auction time.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

Neither of you are getting it.

Having players on IR during the season is a normal practice. Having players on IR does not affect roster limits.

Therefore, knowing that players will be IR eligible, putting them on IR at the time of the auction to shore up the position is not counter to the intent of the rules, does not give an advantage not given during the season when players are on IR, and is not bastardizing the rules in any way.

_________________
Champion of HoP in 2009 and 2012.

Interesting article: http://dynastyfootballwarehouse.com/statistical-analysis-and-fantasy-football/

No, that would be you.

I get your argument, and if you want it changed for future years then it can be voted on. As is, you can't do what you want to do because you can only keep 5 non taxi squad eligible RB's.

For some reason you don't get that.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

When you guys sort anything out this offseason, let me know if I need to do something with my roster. Its the offseason and I am focusing on other stuff until the rookie draft early next month...

It seems rather obvious to me that all of this is a power play. Cyrus is protecting his interests, Mark sees an opportunity to f*** an opponent over and is trying to leverage that, and James is playing the "neutral" arbitrator while knowing that a resolution that goes against Cyrus will allow him to sweep in and vulture what he can. Whether any of it amounts to good strategy or posturing, is, I guess, up to the individual interpreter. I have no opinion on that particular point.

For my money, there's absolutely no reason why people on the PUP list shouldn't be IR eligible and all that entails, but being that Cyrus is my brother I'm sure my opinion will be discounted. Nonetheless, I see no precedent supporting Mark's arguments.

My only reason for posting is to suggest two things:

One, it seems to me that Mark is assuming an authority and a power that I'm not sure is rightfully his. I could be wrong. If he's the commissioner and this is his league, then I think we all have to defer to his judgment on the matter. If, however, his voice is merely one of many equal voices, than I think we need to stop the "we'll vote on it next year" crap and see where the league stands right now.

Two, there's no need for any of us to get snippy or self-righteous. What appears obvious to me is that there is a genuine lack of clarity regarding this issue/rule, and one that needs to be clarified by consensus rather than posturing or argument. By my reading of the league rules, no one has the full, unambiguous weight of the rules behind them, and so rather than getting chippy, we should vote in order to gain a common understanding.

Just my opinion.

P.S. To be clear, I think Cyrus threw a hissy, and is every bit as guilty of being rude/arrogant as Mark... I'm not pointing fingers at people so much as saying as we don't have to let things go this far if we just open the issue up to a vote.

_________________
Ready. Willing. Able.

If passing people through as IR eligible rather than using one of the designated roster spots were allowed in the league then it would have been done in at least one of the previous seasons, likely all of them. And by several owners. I'm sure I won't be the only one who would take advantage of it this off season with David Gettis if it were a part of the rules. I would expect the Jamaal Charles owner to do the same, I'm sure others too.

It's not a power play, it's the rules.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32

If it were that cut and dry, you wouldn't have three other league members who don't read it that way. Plain and simple.

If you want the rule to be interpreted as such, I suggest you rewrite it so as to make it more lucid.

_________________
Ready. Willing. Able.

Already asked Cy to do that since I didn't the first time.

If this were in effect in this league then people would keep IR players every year and stash them on the IRa at auction time. Welker's probably the most relevant case. I traded him in part because he would cost me a roster spot and Norm bought him knowing it would cost him a roster spot. Additionally, it was never known if Welker would be active week 1 or not. Rumors popped up on both sides iirc, but nothing concrete. Can't see any differences between his case and this one. So, Norm was at least on the same page as me. I'm sure if I took the time I'd find more. Off the top of my head, before this league's time, Braylon Edwards was declared out until November after shredding his knee. All of a sudden the week before opening day he was declared a go for week 1. So in the end none of us have a clue if these guys will be active or inactive week 1.

If Mendy and Moreno can be IR'd then a whole glutton of others on people's rosters can too - deluting the auction pool. One of the main reasons for the roster limits was to ensure there was talent available at auction. When this league was developed one of the biggest concerns we had was ensuring the auction would still be fun and relevant each year, we knew it would be sluggish for the first couple of years with most good [layers under contract but the idea was that once the first run of contracts expired that the auction would get a lot more interesting each year. To do this we had to make constraints so that there would be talent available. Hence, the limits. If there were IR loop holes then people would exploit them and there would be much less talent available making the auctions a lot less fun.

Lastly, because I am going to be way too busy at work to continue on arguing this during the week - this won't get changed as long as I am still commish so if you all want to put this through effective immediately then vote me out of the commish role. I believe I have always made decisions with the league's best interest and this is no different. To say I'm doing this because Cy is a direct competitor leads me to believe at least one owner doesn't think I have the leagues best interests in mind, that he doesn't trust me. I compete against everyone in this league, not just him. If others feel the same as you then discuss behind closed doors and tell me to step down. I won't be part of a rule change that is clearly not in the league's best interest, rather just a specific owner's, who is demanding he do something that other owners have had opportunities to do in the past (with no reason not to do it) and have not done so.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32