The Real Jack Cust Situation

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:36 am

Disclaimer: What you are about to read is what I’ve been able to piece together surrounding the Jack Cust SNAFU. I apologize if there are any inaccuracies, but I get the feeling that the Cust Cover-up is in effect.

I’ve been a friend of Greg’s for a number of years. We’ve shared beers and many good stories together. So, it pains me greatly to write this post, as I believe there is a great injustice being done by Greg and the NFBC by allowing Cust to continue to be OF eligible. It’s against the rules and against prior NFBC rulings regarding position eligibility. I’m not trying to be a bad guy here. I just want to play by rules that are fair and upheld consistently. Here’s the story…

Jack Cust was playing in the minor leagues until Friday, 5/4/07. On this date he got called up to the majors by the Oakland Athletics. He would have been added to the STATS free agent pool on either Friday or Saturday. At this time his position eligibility should have been determined by applying the rules of the NFBC contest. The rules for minor-leaguer position eligibility are, and I quote, “Minor-leaguers who did not play 20 games at any position in 2006 but who still played at least one game in the majors last year, will qualify at the position they played the most at in the majors in 2006.” Looking at Cust’s 2006 major league season shows that he played in 3 games as a “pinch hitter” and 1 game as an OF. Now in most fantasy baseball leagues “pinch hitting” doesn’t count toward position eligibility, but in the NFBC Greg has made it clear in past rulings that he does count pinch hitting as a position when it comes to allocating position eligibility.

Examples of previous NFBC rulings showing that pinch hitting counts as a position… In 2003, Ramon Castro played in 27 games as a “pinch hitter” and 18 games as a catcher. Greg ruled that Castro’s 2004 position eligibility was Utility only. In 2005, Prince Fielder played in 29 games as a “pinch hitter”, 7 games as a 1B, and 4 games as a DH. Greg ruled that Fielder’s 2006 position eligibility was Utility only.

Going back to Cust, in 2006 he played in 3 games as a pinch hitter and 1 game as an OF. Based on the NFBC rules as well as past rulings his 2007 position eligibility should have been Utility only. Unfortunately a mistake was made either by Greg or STATS because Cust was added as an OF.

Cust appeared in his FIRST game of the year on Sunday, 5/6/07, in which he did hit a homerun. With that said, SUNDAY AFTERNOON was likely the first time NFBC owners were looking for Jack Cust in the free agent pool, and only a very small amount of owners even looked for him as Cust wasn’t picked up in many leagues on Sunday.

Monday, 5/7/07, an NFBC participant questioned Greg about Cust’s position eligibility LESS THAN 24 HOURS after people began looking for Cust on Sunday. Apparently the mistake that was made initially was swept under the rug. Not any longer my friends.

And that brings us to today. I apologize for not finding, realizing, and reporting that Cust is not eligible to be played at OF until this past weekend. I’m a very busy person and I’ve got some real time draining situations I’m dealing with on the homefront. In addition, it’s not my responsibility to ensure players have the correct position availability. By Greg’s own admission, someone did raise this point directly to Greg the VERY NEXT DAY from when any reasonable person would have been looking for Cust in the free agent pool.

With all of that said, the NFBC and Greg has a chance to correct a wrong. My accusation is that Cust’s eligibility was NEVER checked in the first place. He was added to the free agent pool by STATS and since they don’t recognize “pinch hitting” as a position, they went with the next best, OF. When questioned about it, it was “convenient” but wrong for Greg to allow Cust to stay at OF.

Allowing Cust to continue to play at OF is illegal and goes directly against the rules, as well as past NFBC precedent. I’m surprised that I have to say that, as Greg should be able to realize this on his own. If David Ortiz was available in free agency at 2B and teams bid on him that way, would you allow Ortiz to play the rest of the year at 2B? No you wouldn’t.

Own up to the Cust mistake, correct it (make Cust Utility-only), and ensure going forward that you have clearer rules and a better check and balance system when it comes to determining position eligibility.

My compromise on how to handle this situation:

1. Allow teams that played Cust at OF illegally last week to keep the stats.

2. Make Cust U-only beginning today.

3. If any teams that bid on Cust thinking that he was OF eligible should be given a chance to put him back in the free agent pool and get their money back.

I know this isn’t “convenient” for the NFBC, but it is the right call.

[ May 21, 2007, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:56 am

Sometimes the more you talk the more you look like an a$$. Isn't there 375 teams entered in this event? How many have a problem with the ruling? ONE...So is it Greg job to make you happy? You are comparing players who were on pre-draft lists to a player added during a free agent period. If you can't see the difference in the situation, then there lies the problem. You have three choice: A-move on, B-don't play anymore, C-run your event and make yourself happy...This is a dead issue now. Go spend sometime with the wife...

[ May 21, 2007, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: CC's Desperados ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:59 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Sometimes the more you talk the more you look like an a$$. Isn't there 375 teams entered in this event? How many have a problem with the ruling? ONE...So is it Greg job to make you happy? You are comparing players who were on pre-draft lists to a player added during a free agent period. If you can't see the difference in the situation, then there lies the problem. You have three choice: A-move on, B-don't play anymore, C-run you event and make yourself happy...This is a dead issue now. Go spend sometime with the wife... i can tell you side with the "Convenient, but wrong" crowd.

and if you think i'm the only one upset about the cust situation, you are very mistaken.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:23 am

Seems to me that the Cust ruling was by the book, and Prince Fielder and Castro got a raw deal. (But like Shawn said...apples and oranges)

~Lance

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:28 am

Mark, I met you for the first time a few months and think you are a good guy but I do want to make just one point. If Cust was 3 for 40 since being called up with no dingers there is ZERO, and I repeat ZERO chance that this thread would be appearing anywhere on these boards.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:44 am

Originally posted by fireballs:

Mark, I met you for the first time a few months and think you are a good guy but I do want to make just one point. If Cust was 3 for 40 since being called up with no dingers there is ZERO, and I repeat ZERO chance that this thread would be appearing anywhere on these boards. Jeff - it was a pleasure meeting you as well.

You might be right, but I can only speak for the situation at hand and try to get a correct ruling as based on the Rules and previous NFBC rulings.

The Cust ruling goes against both.

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:16 am

But would you have started this thread if he started out 3 for 40 and a negative impact on any team that had him?

JEagle · Post by **JEagle** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:59 am

maybe gekko was outbid for cust..

Brilee's Brigade · Post by **Brilee's Brigade** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:55 pm

Sounds like the Cust ruling is right on when it comes to the written rules we had all gotten prior to the draft. We are all unable to play a player at PH. Looks more like the Castro and Fielder situations were based on judgement and that is the real wrong.

Gekko if you had either player in either year, I suggest you run those stats all over again and see if you would have faired better starting either Castro at C or Fielder at 1B to start the respective seasons. You might be entitled to some prize money.

Brilee's Brigade · Post by **Brilee's Brigade** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:56 pm

Of course, I am just being sarcastic, you probably wont recoup any prize money for those past seasons.