The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,617
There is a team that does not have a catcher on the roster. Now, there there is no specific rule on ESPN about this, I have stated here in the past that every starting offensive position has to be filled. I can look back through this thread or the other for verification on this.
My question to the league is how do you want to proceed with this? My suggestion is we give the team in question an opportunity to acquire a catcher and insert him I to the line up by the next waiver claim period (which is Wednesday I believe). If he doesnt, he should get some sort of penalty to be decided by the league.
Or
Do we ignore it and allow teams to not completely fill their rosters. I think i know the thinking behind not rostering a catcher. I think he figures why waste a roster spot on a guy that would hurt his team more than help when he can add a pitcher or someone else that can help his team in other ways
Let me know what you guys think.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
There is a team that does not have a catcher on the roster. Now, there there is no specific rule on ESPN about this, I have stated here in the past that every starting offensive position has to be filled. I can look back through this thread or the other for verification on this.
My question to the league is how do you want to proceed with this? My suggestion is we give the team in question an opportunity to acquire a catcher and insert him I to the line up by the next waiver claim period (which is Wednesday I believe). If he doesnt, he should get some sort of penalty to be decided by the league.
Or
Do we ignore it and allow teams to not completely fill their rosters. I think i know the thinking behind not rostering a catcher. I think he figures why waste a roster spot on a guy that would hurt his team more than help when he can add a pitcher or someone else that can help his team in other ways
Let me know what you guys think.
Posted in the league forum. No reason not to let him shoot himself in the foot if this is a theory he wants to try. Think it is flawed and you stated there are no rules against it.
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
There is a team that does not have a catcher on the roster. Now, there there is no specific rule on ESPN about this, I have stated here in the past that every starting offensive position has to be filled. I can look back through this thread or the other for verification on this.
My question to the league is how do you want to proceed with this? My suggestion is we give the team in question an opportunity to acquire a catcher and insert him I to the line up by the next waiver claim period (which is Wednesday I believe). If he doesnt, he should get some sort of penalty to be decided by the league.
Or
Do we ignore it and allow teams to not completely fill their rosters. I think i know the thinking behind not rostering a catcher. I think he figures why waste a roster spot on a guy that would hurt his team more than help when he can add a pitcher or someone else that can help his team in other ways
Let me know what you guys think.
Posted in the league forum. No reason not to let him shoot himself in the foot if this is a theory he wants to try. Think it is flawed and you stated there are no rules against it.
"Let Them Play! Let Them Play!"
Exactly......did the exact same thing last year and it wasn't an issue......for catcher (as with most positions) you have "starter" listed as 1 followed by "no limits"....there is no mention of having to roster a catcher , only that I'm allowed to only start 1 as part of my team each night....so whoever qualifies for whatever position I have sitting on my bench, I have the right to roster whoever I want on any given night (just like you do).... I don't see catcher as a value position so why would I waste a roster position on someone that I have the right to bench every night if I wanted to anyways?(like you do as well) ...By doing so, I'm taking the risk by not throwing one out there every night for offence (the same could be said of any other position that gets thin and not deep, perhaps SS)...it's not my fault i"m still getting batters victories rostering one less player every night.......It was my choice to be smart and learn from playing F Me the last couple of years and invest in pitching for my bench rather than regulars, because I see that as a necessary area of strength.... I'll gladly accept my "punishment" for the lack of clarity (don't see anything about rosters in this thread) and being in 1st place, which I'm sure played into this being such a big issue a month into the season.....and should it have been clarified that "bench" players meant anyone could fill that roster spot (hitters and pitchers) because there is a separate general "pitchers" category that also exists?
Post edited by maynardsux on
'93 Toronto
'94 Detroit
'10 Columbus
'11 Detroit (Eddie solo), Toronto 1 and 2, Ottawa, Hamilton
'13 London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
'14 Detroit
'16 Ottawa, Toronto 1 and 2, Chicago 1 and 2 '18 Chicago 1 and 2 '22 Hamilton, Toronto
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,617
There is a team that does not have a catcher on the roster. Now, there there is no specific rule on ESPN about this, I have stated here in the past that every starting offensive position has to be filled. I can look back through this thread or the other for verification on this.
My question to the league is how do you want to proceed with this? My suggestion is we give the team in question an opportunity to acquire a catcher and insert him I to the line up by the next waiver claim period (which is Wednesday I believe). If he doesnt, he should get some sort of penalty to be decided by the league.
Or
Do we ignore it and allow teams to not completely fill their rosters. I think i know the thinking behind not rostering a catcher. I think he figures why waste a roster spot on a guy that would hurt his team more than help when he can add a pitcher or someone else that can help his team in other ways
Let me know what you guys think.
Posted in the league forum. No reason not to let him shoot himself in the foot if this is a theory he wants to try. Think it is flawed and you stated there are no rules against it.
"Let Them Play! Let Them Play!"
Exactly......did the exact same thing last year and it wasn't an issue......for catcher (as with most positions) you have "starter" listed as 1 followed by "no limits"....there is no mention of having to roster a catcher , only that I'm allowed to only start 1 as part of my team each night....so whoever qualifies for whatever position I have sitting on my bench, I have the right to roster whoever I want on any given night (just like you do).... I don't see catcher as a value position so why would I waste a roster position on someone that I have the right to bench every night if I wanted to anyways?(like you do as well) ...By doing so, I'm taking the risk by not throwing one out there every night for offence (the same could be said of any other position that gets thin and not deep, perhaps SS)...it's not my fault i"m still getting batters victories rostering one less player every night.......It was my choice to be smart and learn from playing F Me the last couple of years and invest in pitching for my bench rather than regulars, because I see that as a necessary area of strength.... I'll gladly accept my "punishment" for the lack of clarity (don't see anything about rosters in this thread) and being in 1st place, which I'm sure played into this being such a big issue a month into the season.....and should it have been clarified that "bench" players meant anyone could fill that roster spot (hitters and pitchers) because there is a separate general "pitchers" category that also exists?
Some league do insist that you have a person on the roster who could potentially fill every spot. I disagree with this as a rule and, as you say, the rules never seem to say you actually have to play them. Nothing to see here, as far as I am concerned -- there is no rule, so no rule was broken.
Comments
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
8/28/98- Camden, NJ
10/31/09- Philly
5/21/10- NYC
9/2/12- Philly, PA
7/19/13- Wrigley
10/19/13- Brooklyn, NY
10/21/13- Philly, PA
10/22/13- Philly, PA
10/27/13- Baltimore, MD
Tres Mts.- 3/23/11- Philly
Eddie Vedder- 6/25/11- Philly
we will find a way, we will find our place
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
Brett, I'm coming for you.
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
we will find a way, we will find our place
Thanks
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
we will find a way, we will find our place
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
we will find a way, we will find our place
My question to the league is how do you want to proceed with this? My suggestion is we give the team in question an opportunity to acquire a catcher and insert him I to the line up by the next waiver claim period (which is Wednesday I believe). If he doesnt, he should get some sort of penalty to be decided by the league.
Or
Do we ignore it and allow teams to not completely fill their rosters. I think i know the thinking behind not rostering a catcher. I think he figures why waste a roster spot on a guy that would hurt his team more than help when he can add a pitcher or someone else that can help his team in other ways
Let me know what you guys think.
we will find a way, we will find our place
DEGENERATE FUK
This place is dead
"THERE ARE NO CLIQUES, ONLY THOSE WHO DON'T JOIN THE FUN" - Empty circa 2015
"Kfsbho&$thncds" - F Me In the Brain - circa 2015
"Let Them Play! Let Them Play!"
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Fuckus rules all
Rob
Seattle
Exactly......did the exact same thing last year and it wasn't an issue......for catcher (as with most positions) you have "starter" listed as 1 followed by "no limits"....there is no mention of having to roster a catcher , only that I'm allowed to only start 1 as part of my team each night....so whoever qualifies for whatever position I have sitting on my bench, I have the right to roster whoever I want on any given night (just like you do).... I don't see catcher as a value position so why would I waste a roster position on someone that I have the right to bench every night if I wanted to anyways?(like you do as well) ...By doing so, I'm taking the risk by not throwing one out there every night for offence (the same could be said of any other position that gets thin and not deep, perhaps SS)...it's not my fault i"m still getting batters victories rostering one less player every night.......It was my choice to be smart and learn from playing F Me the last couple of years and invest in pitching for my bench rather than regulars, because I see that as a necessary area of strength.... I'll gladly accept my "punishment" for the lack of clarity (don't see anything about rosters in this thread) and being in 1st place, which I'm sure played into this being such a big issue a month into the season.....and should it have been clarified that "bench" players meant anyone could fill that roster spot (hitters and pitchers) because there is a separate general "pitchers" category that also exists?
'94 Detroit
'10 Columbus
'11 Detroit (Eddie solo), Toronto 1 and 2, Ottawa, Hamilton
'13 London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
'14 Detroit
'16 Ottawa, Toronto 1 and 2, Chicago 1 and 2
'18 Chicago 1 and 2
'22 Hamilton, Toronto
I disagree with this as a rule and, as you say, the rules never seem to say you actually have to play them.
Nothing to see here, as far as I am concerned -- there is no rule, so no rule was broken.