**ALERT Jack Cust ERROR?

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:16 pm

This is a tough situation. As I have stated, I think he should be allowed to stay as OF.

The bids were based on it. I have Cust in Draft Champions League, drafted him before season started. He has always appeared with OF eligibility. I will admit, I didn't check his eligibility as far as where he played last year. I assumed he was OF eligible.

I don't like the pinch hitting rule counting as an appearance. I know it has been discussed before.

I think if this had been caught earlier, things would have possibly turned out differently.

Greg, if you read this and decide the decision must be overturned to remain consistent, I understand, but would like the opportunity to set my line up, not have it dicatated to me. (Not saying you would do that, but ti looks like it was mentioned.)

I don't envy you Greg. People will be upset either way. It's easy to say keep him, for owners who have him, but I just have him in a couple satellites...owners who think they are competing for $100K will be a little more opinionated.

Not to be funny, but going forward, I would suggest - suggest, not demand - that going forward, pinch hit appearences do not count towards eligibility, just actual positions. If you check most web sites, if not all, they will list positions played, but I never see pinch hitter, pinch runner...it can be called the Jack Cust rule

Personally, I'm in favor of 1 time at a position eligibilty if player was there last year or this year...if Dye was good enough to play shortstop for Ozzie Guillen, who am I to argue???

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:41 pm

Originally posted by eddiejag:

I have to agree with everything Shawn said, you cant go back in time two weeks ago and now bring this up.This wouldnt be fair to anyone , whats done is done. Wrong. Jered weaver was removed from someone's team a couple weeks after he was mistakenly available and picked up on the free agent wire last year

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:43 pm

Originally posted by SluggoJD:

There's no crying in baseball.

PH is not a position.

Cust was, and is, qualified at OF.

And the evil weasel goes down in flames again. Wrong. The "PH" was greg's creation. He has ruled by it before and I 100% expect him to change his Cust ruling after he has a night to sleep on it.

[ May 20, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:46 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by eddiejag:

I have to agree with everything Shawn said, you cant go back in time two weeks ago and now bring this up.This wouldnt be fair to anyone , whats done is done. Wrong. Jered weaver was removed from someone's team a couple weeks after he was mistakenly available and picked up on the free agent wire last year [/QUOTE]He never pitched for that team. There is a big difference.

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:48 pm

Mark, Greg could sleep on it until Christmas but im pretty sure Cust owners will not have two weeks of stats wiped out.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:54 pm

Originally posted by fireballs:

Mark, Greg could sleep on it until Christmas but im pretty sure Cust owners will not have two weeks of stats wiped out. I'd settle for cust just being DH only elgible from this day forward. He shouldn't be OF eligible. It was a mistake, but it has to be corrected, not continued. Greg's ruling makes zero sense when compared to the rules and prior precedent set forth by the nfbc.

The only thing I'm looking for Jeff is for a wrong to be made right. Greg is looking to prolong a wrong IMO.

kgrady · Post by **kgrady** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:56 pm

A few points/observations:

1) Given the circumstances, Greg made the only reasonable decision on Cust's eligibility that he could. Everyone had a fair shot at Cust as an OF, and it would be a logistical nightmare to try to retroactively enforce the rule.

2) Going forward, STATS needs to have the eligibility rules down pat in their software so that each player is accurately represented.

3) Going forward, pinch hitting appearances should not count toward position eligibility.

4) It's ironic that Cust's defense is an issue in our game. Why? His defense is a major issue in real life. This kid is a legitimate major league hitter, but he's a dreadful fielder, so much so that it has prevented him from getting a real shot in the big leagues.

Kevin

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:58 pm

I hear ya Mark but im going to go out on a limb that almost all that bid on Cust (or considered bidding on Cust) had him pegged as OF eligible (if not im sure this would have came up sooner), IMO. I personally dont care what his eligibility is although I think he should be OF eligible, although I understand your point.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:02 pm

Originally posted by fireballs:

I hear ya Mark but im going to go out on a limb that almost all that bid on Cust (or considered bidding on Cust) had him pegged as OF eligible (if not im sure this would have came up sooner), IMO. I personally dont care what his eligibility is although I think he should be OF eligible, although I understand your point. how about the folks who knew the eligibility rules and decided not to bid aggressively on cust because he supposed to be Utility only? how about if those teams had thome, ortiz, hafner, etc... those owners got screwed over.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:05 pm

Gekko's profile:

Profile for Gordon Gekko

Member Status: Member

Member Number: 7

Registered: January 23, 2004

Posts: 2462

Occupation: Misinformation

Interests: Greed

Enough of the lies, crying, and troublemaking.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:07 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

When he was available via free agency, he had an outfield designation. Everyone saw that and had the right to bid accordingly. Only one owner questioned that, the day after bids were processed. so someone did question it back then. if i remember correctly, cust was called up on a friday night and played his first game on a sunday...meaning he was added to the FA pool very late in the week.

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:08 pm

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:11 pm

Originally posted by fireballs:

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom? sure if they had time to or wanted to or felt the need to be the nfbc police, etc....why is the pressure on the participants to make sure everyone is listed correctly? i didn't sign up for that.

it looks like mark reynolds is another STATS or NFBC snafu.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:12 pm

Originally posted by fireballs:

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom? if i remember correctly STATS had cust listed as Cust, Jack DH OAK

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:15 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by fireballs:

I hear ya Mark but im going to go out on a limb that almost all that bid on Cust (or considered bidding on Cust) had him pegged as OF eligible (if not im sure this would have came up sooner), IMO. I personally dont care what his eligibility is although I think he should be OF eligible, although I understand your point. how about the folks who knew the eligibility rules and decided not to bid aggressively on cust because he supposed to be Utility only? how about if those teams had thome, ortiz, hafner, etc... those owners got screwed over. [/QUOTE]They have had three weeks to bring it up.....Are you crying over spilt milk? You have Thome.....If you weren't so busy bring up shitt on the message board, you could have sent Greg an E-mail. Oh, I forgot, you are too busy do the water route....This thread has taken up none of your free time. The Cust owner have the stats in the bank. I'd much rather have him playing because he isn't this good.....Unless you think he isn't the next Chris Shelton!!

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:22 pm

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

They have had three weeks to bring it up.....did you read greg's email? someone did bring it up back then...

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

When he was available via free agency, he had an outfield designation. Everyone saw that and had the right to bid accordingly. Only one owner questioned that, the day after bids were processed.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:23 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by fireballs:

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom? sure if they had time to or wanted to or felt the need to be the nfbc police, etc....why is the pressure on the participants to make sure everyone is listed correctly? i didn't sign up for that.

it looks like mark reynolds is another STATS or NFBC snafu. [/QUOTE]Reynolds was never listed as a third baseman. If you went under search, he had a 3rd next to his name. When you clicked on him, it showed him as SS/MI and UT.....He wasn't on the list when you went under the third baseman. I think you assumed he was a third baseman.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:27 pm

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by fireballs:

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom? sure if they had time to or wanted to or felt the need to be the nfbc police, etc....why is the pressure on the participants to make sure everyone is listed correctly? i didn't sign up for that.

it looks like mark reynolds is another STATS or NFBC snafu. [/QUOTE]Reynolds was never listed as a third baseman. If you went under search, he had a 3rd next to his name. When you clicked on him, it showed him as SS/MI and UT.....He wasn't on the list when you went under the third baseman. I think you assumed he was a third baseman. [/QUOTE]shawn, he has 3B next to his name. when i look at free agents i look by using utility because i can see everyone.

why is STATS listing him as 3B RIGHT NEXT TO HIS NAME if he isn't qualified to play 3rd base?

again, if he isn't qualified at 3B give me back the player i dropped

STATS F's us again. just great.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:29 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

They have had three weeks to bring it up.....did you read greg's email? someone did bring it up back then...

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

When he was available via free agency, he had an outfield designation. Everyone saw that and had the right to bid accordingly. Only one owner questioned that, the day after bids were processed. [/QUOTE]Did you? They brought it up after FAAB was run...the next day

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:31 pm

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

They have had three weeks to bring it up.....did you read greg's email? someone did bring it up back then...

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

When he was available via free agency, he had an outfield designation. Everyone saw that and had the right to bid accordingly. Only one owner questioned that, the day after bids were processed. [/QUOTE]Did you? They brought it up after FAAB was run...the next day [/QUOTE]the point is someone brought it up and it was swept under the rug.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:31 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by fireballs:

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom? sure if they had time to or wanted to or felt the need to be the nfbc police, etc....why is the pressure on the participants to make sure everyone is listed correctly? i didn't sign up for that.

it looks like mark reynolds is another STATS or NFBC snafu. [/QUOTE]Reynolds was never listed as a third baseman. If you went under search, he had a 3rd next to his name. When you clicked on him, it showed him as SS/MI and UT.....He wasn't on the list when you went under the third baseman. I think you assumed he was a third baseman. [/QUOTE]shawn, he has 3B next to his name. when i look at free agents i look by using utility because i can see everyone.

why is STATS listing him as 3B RIGHT NEXT TO HIS NAME if he isn't qualified to play 3rd base?

again, if he isn't qualified at 3B give me back the player i dropped

STATS F's us again. just great. [/QUOTE]Another reason it would be GREAT and LOGICAL to have the players eligible positions listed next to his name in the search for free agents. Why it's not there puzzles me.

I, too, like to search UTI to se all hitters.

~Lance

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:34 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by fireballs:

But it said he was OF eligibe and was able to be bid as OF eligible. If somene was unsure wouldnt/couldnt they just email Greg/Tom? sure if they had time to or wanted to or felt the need to be the nfbc police, etc....why is the pressure on the participants to make sure everyone is listed correctly? i didn't sign up for that.

it looks like mark reynolds is another STATS or NFBC snafu. [/QUOTE]Reynolds was never listed as a third baseman. If you went under search, he had a 3rd next to his name. When you clicked on him, it showed him as SS/MI and UT.....He wasn't on the list when you went under the third baseman. I think you assumed he was a third baseman. [/QUOTE]shawn, he has 3B next to his name. when i look at free agents i look by using utility because i can see everyone.

why is STATS listing him as 3B RIGHT NEXT TO HIS NAME if he isn't qualified to play 3rd base?

again, if he isn't qualified at 3B give me back the player i dropped

STATS F's us again. just great. [/QUOTE]I look under utilty also, but I needed a third baseman in one league. I brought up the list of free agent third baseman....he wasn't listed. I searched his name....this is when I found he was under short.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:11 pm

monday is going to be a bloodbath one way or another over Cust.

The NFBC Rules and the Ramon Castro NFBC precedent ruling should have been enough to get the correct call made. i have additional (and previously unseen) evidence that i will be presenting tomorrow.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:17 pm

LOL

Present your collection of used condoms for all we care.

Greg has already ruled. Greg has already explained. And a lot of folks can testify that Cust had and still has OF next to his name, when you go to his player profile.

If you're too lazy to look at player profile pages, that's not our fault.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:28 pm

I am not going to comment one way or the other on the Cust question but I have to comment on the fact that STATS often has the wrong position listed next to a players name. Multiple times I have seen this and made a mistake because of it. I don't mind not having every position listed, but atleast the position listed should match the elgibility listed on their profile. This is far to often not the case

Spy