Cliff Pennington Eligibility

Cowboy Joe · Post by **Cowboy Joe** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:25 am

Need a position ruling. Thanks.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:36 am

Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. Stiff

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:02 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. Stiff [/QUOTE]who, Tolbert ?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:05 am

Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. UT. 36 games in the majors, 16 at 2B, 10 at SS, 9 at 3B.

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:38 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. UT. 36 games in the majors, 16 at 2B, 10 at SS, 9 at 3B. [/QUOTE]It's rulings like this that I don't agree with especially when it appears a player like Dayan Viciedo will get 3B eligibility. I think you need to adjust your eligibility rules! Just my opinion but a player who plays zero games at 3B could be eligible there, but a guy who played 16 of 36 and 10 more at a MI position won't qualify at anything but UT. Something doesn't make sense. Oh well, moving on now....

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Originally posted by Hard Heads:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. UT. 36 games in the majors, 16 at 2B, 10 at SS, 9 at 3B. [/QUOTE]It's rulings like this that I don't agree with especially when it appears a player like Dayan Viciedo will get 3B eligibility. I think you need to adjust your eligibility rules! Just my opinion but a player who plays zero games at 3B could be eligible there, but a guy who played 16 of 36 and 10 more at a MI position won't qualify at anything but UT. Something doesn't make sense. Oh well, moving on now.... [/QUOTE]It's a fair statement, but yes our rules state that anyone who plays more than 20 or more games in the majors and not 20 games at any one position is UT-eligible to start the year. I will gladly change the rules in 2010 to state that this player would then qualify at most games played if that's what the masses agree. But for now, the rule is being assessed as we all had it written back after the 2007 season.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:50 pm

Originally posted by Hard Heads:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. UT. 36 games in the majors, 16 at 2B, 10 at SS, 9 at 3B. [/QUOTE]It's rulings like this that I don't agree with especially when it appears a player like Dayan Viciedo will get 3B eligibility. I think you need to adjust your eligibility rules! Just my opinion but a player who plays zero games at 3B could be eligible there, but a guy who played 16 of 36 and 10 more at a MI position won't qualify at anything but UT. Something doesn't make sense. Oh well, moving on now.... [/QUOTE]Don't worry Greg is going to re-write the elig rules for next year. If a player doesn't play 20g at ONE position then he qualifies for the position he played the most at REGARDLESS of games played. Right Greg

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:20 pm

Originally posted by Quahogs:

quote:Originally posted by Hard Heads:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:

Need a position ruling. Thanks. UT. 36 games in the majors, 16 at 2B, 10 at SS, 9 at 3B. [/QUOTE]It's rulings like this that I don't agree with especially when it appears a player like Dayan Viciedo will get 3B eligibility. I think you need to adjust your eligibility rules! Just my opinion but a player who plays zero games at 3B could be eligible there, but a guy who played 16 of 36 and 10 more at a MI position won't qualify at anything but UT. Something doesn't make sense. Oh well, moving on now.... [/QUOTE]Don't worry Greg is going to re-write the elig rules for next year. If a player doesn't play 20g at ONE position then he qualifies for the position he played the most at REGARDLESS of games played. Right Greg

[/QUOTE]Coming in 2010 to a ballpark near you.

swampass · Post by **swampass** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:29 pm

much like everyone else.. not trying to stir up trouble, but..... why the 1b ruling for sandoval? it seems as though he should be a UT as well. 17 @1b, 12 @3b, and 11 @C. perhaps i missed the info on sandoval.... if so, apologies.

im in with Q man on position eligibility based on most at one position. seems to make most sense.

getting pumped for Vegas baby!

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:39 pm

Originally posted by swampass:

much like everyone else.. not trying to stir up trouble, but..... why the 1b ruling for sandoval? it seems as though he should be a UT as well. 17 @1b, 12 @3b, and 11 @C. perhaps i missed the info on sandoval.... if so, apologies.

im in with Q man on position eligibility based on most at one position. seems to make most sense.

getting pumped for Vegas baby! Kind of an issue I would say. Why are Sandoval and Viciedo given an exception and not Pennington or Morales? I understand rules are rules and they allow for executive decisions, but i think consistency is more important then making assumptions during these executive decisions. I honestly think that it isn't right that Sandoval gets a different ruling then Pennington. One will have a major impact on drafts and the other won't, but that is not the point. Anyway, might as well stop beating a dead horse. The decision, albeit wrong has been made.