A Very Darrelly Dynasty League

[Boxcar]

I might be confusing this league with a less archaic one.

 

This is exactly what happened, sorry everyone.

[Dr. Dinger]

This is exactly what happened, sorry everyone.

 

Not sure why you think it would make any sense to get a free add during the playoffs. Pretty derpy.

[jaysblue]

Maybe this should be voted on in the offseason...

[Boxcar]

Not sure why you think it would make any sense to get a free add during the playoffs. Pretty derpy.

 

What happens when you add a prospect in LOD during the playoffs?

[Dr. Dinger]

What happens when you add a prospect in LOD during the playoffs?

 

How would I know? That's like asking me what happens after I die.

[BTS]

What happens when you add a prospect in LOD during the playoffs?

 

Well there are no weekly add limits in LOD because the waiver wire consists of shitbag relievers and Ezequiel Carreras.

[Boxcar]

Well there are no weekly add limits in LOD because the waiver wire consists of shitbag relievers and Ezequiel Carreras.

 

If Yahoo had a minor league roster option, would we not use it?

[KingKat]

It seems really obvious to me that a commissioner added minor league player is a legal move in the playoffs. I mean perhaps we should have a provision against this but we most plainly do not have such a provision.

[z3r0s]

ok, lets just make a rule on this and be done with it. Options being something along the lines of;

 

1) Prospects being called up must be added by the owner and count against their adds/wk. No exceptions.

2) Prospects being called up must be added by the owner and count against their adds/wk Exception made if that prospect is being called up as part of a trade.

3) Prospects being called up can (at the owners request) be added by the commissioner so as not to count against their adds/wk.

 

Are these the options that we want to vote on? Is there another option needed / modification to one of those suggestions?

[Dr. Dinger]

It seems really obvious to me that a commissioner added minor league player is a legal move in the playoffs. I mean perhaps we should have a provision against this but we most plainly do not have such a provision.

 

Commissioners never add minor league players for you except during trades, though. So why would we start doing that now? There's no need for any provision, because we don't have any rule saying you can ask a commish to add a prospect for you. That's never been done before outside the context of a trade, and it's only been done as a courtesy.

[Boxcar]

If Yahoo had a minor league roster option, would we not use it?

 

Can anyone answer this?

[Dr. Dinger]

Can anyone answer this?

 

I really doubt that Yahoo would add all the low-minors guys we draft, so it probably wouldn't be practical. Not much point in discussing this hypothetical scenario, and besides which the Google Doc is very simple and effective.

[TheHurl]

I would have never thought of asking a commish to make a prospect move. If one has the offending people should lose draft picks as that is what would happen if we broke a rule that isn't really a rule. Honestly, I don't think this should even be a question but those saying lets get it in writing and not worry about this in the future. I'm sure at this point Silvergun wouldn't accept the move even if it was offered to him...or he'd leave the league in a huff again. It's one or the other.

[KingKat]

Commissioners never add minor league players for you except during trades, though.

 

This isn't true. I've had it done for me just because I used up my move and if there wasn't a precedent (which there is), you can't just create post facto conditions on commissioner adds when they didn't exist before.

[KingKat]

Can anyone answer this?

 

Yes we would use it and if you're larger point is why would we prevent people from using assets they legally own in the playoffs or otherwise, my answer would be that we shouldn't.

[TheHurl]

I really doubt that Yahoo would add all the low-minors guys we draft, so it probably wouldn't be practical. Not much point in discussing this hypothetical scenario, and besides which the Google Doc is very simple and effective.

 

I really think they are the last to do it. CBS has almost every defected Cuban and most Asian players who might come over. Although I'm on their pay site.

[Boxcar]

I really doubt that Yahoo would add all the low-minors guys we draft, so it probably wouldn't be practical. Not much point in discussing this hypothetical scenario, and besides which the Google Doc is very simple and effective.

 

Either you're dodging the question or my point flew over your head. Take your pick.

[Dr. Dinger]

Yes we would use it and if you're larger point is why would we prevent people from using assets they legally own in the playoffs or otherwise, my answer would be that we shouldn't.

 

You can use your assets, you just have to add them yourself.

[KingKat]

You can use your assets, you just have to add them yourself.

 

That seems reasonable. I wasn't sure if people also wanted to have a set playoff roster with no possibility of MiLB adds at all.

[Dr. Dinger]

Either you're dodging the question or my point flew over your head. Take your pick.

 

Sorry, let me backtrack and march right into your semantic maze. Sounds like fun.

 

LOD is irrelevant here, it's a completely different format and fraught with many of it's own roster issues which have been brought to light this year (mostly because of me!).

[Boxcar]

You can use your assets, you just have to add them yourself.

 

So, in the event that yahoo added full minor league farm capability, we would either ignore this feature or we would use it but punish anyone who calls up a prospect by taking away a weekly add for every prospect they've called up. Is this correct?

[KingKat]

Just to be clear... Nothing has actually happened right? No commish adds have been made? SilverGunn was just wondering if he was entitled to a free move and everyone is (incorrectly IMO) telling him that he isn't?

[Dr. Dinger]

So, in the event that yahoo added full minor league farm capability, we would either ignore this feature or we would use it but punish anyone who calls up a prospect by taking away a weekly add for every prospect they've called up. Is this correct?

 

If Yahoo added full minor league farm capability, it wouldn't count as an add (I'm guessing), it would probably work like moving someone up out of your NA slot. So really, your point is both hypothetical and moot. If you want to promote a prospect in June and stash him in your NA slot all season and then call him up for an extra ^ during the playoffs, be my guest.

[KingKat]

So, in the event that yahoo added full minor league farm capability, we would either ignore this feature or we would use it but punish anyone who calls up a prospect by taking away a weekly add for every prospect they've called up. Is this correct?

 

Well we have no idea what the settings for such a feature would be. Perhaps they would be counted as weekly moves. Perhaps there would be an option. If the default is that they don't count as weekly moves and it can't be set otherwise than yeah we wouldn't bother enforcing a moves penalty because that would be a huge hassle. Pragmatism before principle.

[Boxcar]

If Yahoo added full minor league farm capability, it wouldn't count as an add (I'm guessing), it would probably work like moving someone up out of your NA slot. So really, your point is both hypothetical and moot.

 

No, what we have here is a "rule" strictly based on limitations of our platform, which seems arbitrary and nonsensical, hence my reference to this league being archaic. I'd expect this kind of rigidity from the fantasy challenge geezer league.

[Dr. Dinger]

Good talk.

[TheHurl]

So, in the event that yahoo added full minor league farm capability, we would either ignore this feature or we would use it but punish anyone who calls up a prospect by taking away a weekly add for every prospect they've called up. Is this correct?

 

Chances are the system would change and it wouldn't count as a move anymore. But that doesn't change the situation here. in no way should a commissioner be adding a prospect for a manager. What if a commish wasn't available for the move? Should that manager be punished? So many issues come up by saying that it can happen. It's much easier to say it is a move and that's final until Yahoo changes the system.

[KingKat]

If Yahoo added full minor league farm capability, it wouldn't count as an add (I'm guessing), it would probably work like moving someone up out of your NA slot. So really, your point is both hypothetical and moot. If you want to promote a prospect in June and stash him in your NA slot all season and then call him up for an extra ^ during the playoffs, be my guest.

 

His point (which isn't moot) is that our paper farm should probably work the same way a mechanical one would probably work, i.e., not count against you move limit. The only reason that farm moves are counting against the limit now is that the players are sitting there in the FA pool when they really shouldn't. It's always been accepted that if the move limits cause a problem (in trade scenarios usually), the commish can just do the add.

[KingKat]

In no way should a commissioner be adding a prospect for a manager.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Commishes do this all the time. It's never been a bone of contention until just now.

[TheHurl]

No, what we have here is a "rule" strictly based on limitations of our platform, which seems arbitrary and nonsensical, hence my reference to this league being archaic. I'd expect this kind of rigidity from the fantasy challenge geezer league.

 

We are talking about the difference between 5 and 6 moves in a week. Hardly like having a double category like hits and average.