Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2011 7:46:12 GMT -5
Great points Nick. And Happy Birthday. I hope it's a good one.
Let's clear some things up. One, I haven't been bitching. Being frank, I haven't really been heard. There's been more reaction to me simply having a difference of opinion, as opposed to the actual content of what I'm saying.
You've got an interesting point about the Nationals franchise operating under the perception of not owning Jeffress, compared to the Giants/Rangers perception of losing Wheeler. I understand this. And it is largely a perceptual difference, not a factual one. It appears to be no big deal for the Nationals to lose Jeffress, cause they've been operating under the FALSE perception that they didn't own him. But the FACT is, they did. For the Giants/Rangers, it appears to be a loss to lose Wheeler because they've been operating under the accurate perception that they did own him. In both cases, regardless of perception, though, the FACTS are that both Jeffress and Wheeler were owned by their teams. This is 100% fact. It's just perceived differently based on circumstances.
Which brings me to the huge point I've raised multiple times which you didn't address: what if Wheeler were claimed 6 months from now using the SWP rule instead of now. What then? Are you saying you'd have an objection? Would you go back retroactively and say, "Hey, Pizz probably missed that when he was inactive, Wheeler should stay with his team.". I seriously doubt that. I think we'd all say "Wow, nice catch finding Wheeler. Too bad for the Giants/Rangers."
Maybe Pizz would have caught the error if he'd been more active. That's certainly possible. But it's all guess work, nothing real or tangible. He might just as easily have missed it, and Wheeler would still have slipped through the cracks. So again, my question, what's the difference between discovering Wheeler now and the possibility 6 months from now? Or 3 months? Or even a year down the road? Nothing. No difference at all. THIS is the entire reason the SWP rule was put in place - a solid line in the sand. Not a flexible, if this or that, maybe in this situation, etc, etc, rule. No.
I hear you saying, "Oh, well, maybe the new Rangers GM would have caught the mistake. He should at least have been given a chance." Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that your response would have been different 6 months from now, when it should have been the same.
I get that LO's need to monitor and overview the whole league. I've done that role for nearly a decade.
And rules are there to be solid foundations. I don't think a RULE should be flexible or maliable based upon variable perception or circumstance of the moment. That leaves the door wide open for problems. Think of kids. They're healthier with solid and consistent boundaries and foundations that guide them, not changing scenarios to fit the moment. Thank you Dr Freud.
Sure, things can come up that none of us foresee. Happens all the time. But in this particular case, I honestly believe that being consistent to the rules in place is MORE important than setting the precedent that it's ok to reinterpret as we go along. THAT is the core of what I'm saying, not this particular incident.
Now I hear what some might say, "That WAS the rule, that the LO could intervene if necessary.". I get that.....but why? What a weird thing to write in. Is that written in to any other league rule? No. So why this one? And why the heck is it so heavily emphasized, both in red and bolded. It's one of the most basic and understood things in Fantasy Baseball that the League Commissioner will intervene as necessary. So why even state it in the first place, and then why emphasize it so heavily?
From the odd, unnecessary emphasis to things spoken in private messages, it's clear that the LO knew GM's might be quitting and put that rule in attempting to safeguard against potential, unforseen fallout. I get it. Honorable attempt to protect the league, which is what you all are heralding and agreeing with. I appreciate that.
And if they knew GM's might be quitting, why not create a simple addendum like:
"In the event that a GM quits and has been inactive for a period of 1 month or greater, the SWP rule will not apply retroactively for that 1 month of inactivity." Or something like that. You wanted a solution, there's one idea. Maybe that can help clarify things for people as we move into the future.
I'm not trying to make the LO "wrong" for not having thought of that. Fantasy baseball leagues are dynamic things that grow and evolve through time. This is one of those times.
And it's weird that that line was placed into the SWP rule when there's no mention of "extraneous circumstances" anywhere else in league rules, and where it's frankly, not ever, ever, ever necessary to even write because it's so commonly understood. Why? What was being anticipated?
At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that there needs to be some consistency in the rulings, based on objective facts, not momentary perception, circumstance, or possible unforeseen circumstance. Jeffress vs Wheeler is largely a perceptual difference, not a factual one. Putting that clause into the SWP rule set up a situation where this current scenario could happen. It allowed for us to get into a situation where a player might be drafted and taken away. Was it done intentionally? No, and it opened the door for the problem to occur. It allowed for events and circumstance of a current moment to supercede a lasting policy and precedent through time.
Agree or disagree, THAT is the thing that concerns me, and it is a fundamental, foundational league issue.
Now that i've been writing, I'm realizing where this started. What got my ire up and started this whole thing, was a personal note from the LO saying "You're just out to make even more friends, aren't you? Classy." when I drafted Wheeler. The Office and Position of LO lost almost all credibility when that happened, and got even worse when that was not addressed or rectified, AND THEN was followed up by a legit draft pick being taken away. At that moment, it seemed like I was being punished or retaliated again, and I got pissed. I'll be honest.
As I cooled off, sure I understood what Man was saying. But the whole situation got me thinking bigger picture about what's best for a league. Being fair and inclusive of ALL GM's is best for a league. Trusting their motives, is best for a league (I saw Wheeler available and drafted him. Where was class involved?) Staying consistent to decided rules and league boundaries is what's best for a league, not flexing to fit situations. It's all been said.
I'll be direct as usual and say, hey, I appreciate what you've all said. And we're at a point where you can continue to attack and alienate me, causing discord in the league, or not. I've heard and appreciated everything said. It's time to return the courtesy.
Let's clear some things up. One, I haven't been bitching. Being frank, I haven't really been heard. There's been more reaction to me simply having a difference of opinion, as opposed to the actual content of what I'm saying.
You've got an interesting point about the Nationals franchise operating under the perception of not owning Jeffress, compared to the Giants/Rangers perception of losing Wheeler. I understand this. And it is largely a perceptual difference, not a factual one. It appears to be no big deal for the Nationals to lose Jeffress, cause they've been operating under the FALSE perception that they didn't own him. But the FACT is, they did. For the Giants/Rangers, it appears to be a loss to lose Wheeler because they've been operating under the accurate perception that they did own him. In both cases, regardless of perception, though, the FACTS are that both Jeffress and Wheeler were owned by their teams. This is 100% fact. It's just perceived differently based on circumstances.
Which brings me to the huge point I've raised multiple times which you didn't address: what if Wheeler were claimed 6 months from now using the SWP rule instead of now. What then? Are you saying you'd have an objection? Would you go back retroactively and say, "Hey, Pizz probably missed that when he was inactive, Wheeler should stay with his team.". I seriously doubt that. I think we'd all say "Wow, nice catch finding Wheeler. Too bad for the Giants/Rangers."
Maybe Pizz would have caught the error if he'd been more active. That's certainly possible. But it's all guess work, nothing real or tangible. He might just as easily have missed it, and Wheeler would still have slipped through the cracks. So again, my question, what's the difference between discovering Wheeler now and the possibility 6 months from now? Or 3 months? Or even a year down the road? Nothing. No difference at all. THIS is the entire reason the SWP rule was put in place - a solid line in the sand. Not a flexible, if this or that, maybe in this situation, etc, etc, rule. No.
I hear you saying, "Oh, well, maybe the new Rangers GM would have caught the mistake. He should at least have been given a chance." Maybe. But again, that's not the point. The point is that your response would have been different 6 months from now, when it should have been the same.
I get that LO's need to monitor and overview the whole league. I've done that role for nearly a decade.
And rules are there to be solid foundations. I don't think a RULE should be flexible or maliable based upon variable perception or circumstance of the moment. That leaves the door wide open for problems. Think of kids. They're healthier with solid and consistent boundaries and foundations that guide them, not changing scenarios to fit the moment. Thank you Dr Freud.
Sure, things can come up that none of us foresee. Happens all the time. But in this particular case, I honestly believe that being consistent to the rules in place is MORE important than setting the precedent that it's ok to reinterpret as we go along. THAT is the core of what I'm saying, not this particular incident.
Now I hear what some might say, "That WAS the rule, that the LO could intervene if necessary.". I get that.....but why? What a weird thing to write in. Is that written in to any other league rule? No. So why this one? And why the heck is it so heavily emphasized, both in red and bolded. It's one of the most basic and understood things in Fantasy Baseball that the League Commissioner will intervene as necessary. So why even state it in the first place, and then why emphasize it so heavily?
From the odd, unnecessary emphasis to things spoken in private messages, it's clear that the LO knew GM's might be quitting and put that rule in attempting to safeguard against potential, unforseen fallout. I get it. Honorable attempt to protect the league, which is what you all are heralding and agreeing with. I appreciate that.
And if they knew GM's might be quitting, why not create a simple addendum like:
"In the event that a GM quits and has been inactive for a period of 1 month or greater, the SWP rule will not apply retroactively for that 1 month of inactivity." Or something like that. You wanted a solution, there's one idea. Maybe that can help clarify things for people as we move into the future.
I'm not trying to make the LO "wrong" for not having thought of that. Fantasy baseball leagues are dynamic things that grow and evolve through time. This is one of those times.
And it's weird that that line was placed into the SWP rule when there's no mention of "extraneous circumstances" anywhere else in league rules, and where it's frankly, not ever, ever, ever necessary to even write because it's so commonly understood. Why? What was being anticipated?
At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that there needs to be some consistency in the rulings, based on objective facts, not momentary perception, circumstance, or possible unforeseen circumstance. Jeffress vs Wheeler is largely a perceptual difference, not a factual one. Putting that clause into the SWP rule set up a situation where this current scenario could happen. It allowed for us to get into a situation where a player might be drafted and taken away. Was it done intentionally? No, and it opened the door for the problem to occur. It allowed for events and circumstance of a current moment to supercede a lasting policy and precedent through time.
Agree or disagree, THAT is the thing that concerns me, and it is a fundamental, foundational league issue.
Now that i've been writing, I'm realizing where this started. What got my ire up and started this whole thing, was a personal note from the LO saying "You're just out to make even more friends, aren't you? Classy." when I drafted Wheeler. The Office and Position of LO lost almost all credibility when that happened, and got even worse when that was not addressed or rectified, AND THEN was followed up by a legit draft pick being taken away. At that moment, it seemed like I was being punished or retaliated again, and I got pissed. I'll be honest.
As I cooled off, sure I understood what Man was saying. But the whole situation got me thinking bigger picture about what's best for a league. Being fair and inclusive of ALL GM's is best for a league. Trusting their motives, is best for a league (I saw Wheeler available and drafted him. Where was class involved?) Staying consistent to decided rules and league boundaries is what's best for a league, not flexing to fit situations. It's all been said.
I'll be direct as usual and say, hey, I appreciate what you've all said. And we're at a point where you can continue to attack and alienate me, causing discord in the league, or not. I've heard and appreciated everything said. It's time to return the courtesy.