BONDS BID REVERSAL...HA HA HA

[Corkedbats]

The Joke is on the league. Lv9 TEAM SLACKERBROTHERS won Barry Bonds fair and square and you jokers took him away ( a few months ago. ) He went for over 420- 42% of his budget and he's put up the same #'s this season as Dale Berra. Now team slacker is first in his league and top 20 overall, talk about messing with the integrity of the league? You guys saved his *ss. If you would have made him eat Bonds and his zero's you would have A) taken away 42% of his budget b) occupied a roster spot with zero's! c) crippled his faab pickups the rest of the season.

Now you have given him an unfair advantage to win the overall league. You guys at NFBC should have stuck to your guns; A BID IS A BID PERIOD. You guys caved to the pressure of the "big name" syndrome. If Marino Rivera was dropped would you reverse that? I didn't see anyone get a refund on their FAAB when Adam "I suck" Bernero flopped as a potential closer or 'Mr 200faab average' Burgos of KC flopped as well. I didn't sign up for this league to find out we "make up the rules as we go along." I didn't see Bond's name on a can't cut list before I drafted. Did Yahoo buy you guys out?

Now what happens? If a team drops mr "roids" aka Barry Bonds are you guys going to cave and let him be a drop now? Or will you just make up some more rules as we go along?



I hope team Slacker Brothers LV 9 wins the whole damn thing, then the joke is on upper Management at NFBC for reversing a perfectly legal pickup.

That would just prove the point, you can't make crap up as you go. WE ALL AGREED to the rules BEFORE the season when we signed up. We can live by them how come the management at NFBC can't?



Please don't respond by saying you are trying to "preserve the integrity of the league," you'll only come off sounding like Bud Selig.



Go SLACKERBROTHERS LV9!!!!!!



Viva Bonds and his Flaxseed oil

[Dyv]

Posting on a message board: $10 of fun

Rambling post that resembles 10th grade English: $5 of fun

Forgetting to actually check the rules to make sure you're right: Priceless





All drops are also subject to review by the commissioner of the NFBC and can be revoked if the dropped player is deemed too valuable to be offered to that league's free agent pool, thus damaging the credibility of the overall contest. In the case of a "star" player being dropped in a league for a valid reason, the NFBC commissioner does reserve the right to allow the cut but keep the player out of that league's free agent listing for any length of time, possibly the entire season. All decisions by the NFBC commissioner will be final.

[Chest Rockwell]

Corked bats-





Did you type that long message with all those big words before you got on the school bus this morning?



The decision to not allow Bonds to be dropped was not a good one in hindsight. Just like me dropping Grady Sizemore in week 1 instead of Jeff Devannon was- and that may end up costing me 5k.



Unfortunately neither of us can change it-



They will probably go out of there way to try to explain this to you. I would not- I would tell you that this is a game for adults who realize that not every decision is going to turn out to be the right one and you have to trust people to do the best job they can and to take your business and bad attitude elsewhere.

[Corkedbats]

hey dvy,



So if you were in LV 9 would you want slackers to have bonds and the zero's? or would you want them to kick your arse and win it all on a reversal?

[Corkedbats]

Dear Chester,

The point is it's all subjective. The fact that certain people value an injured bonds that WASN'T going to play this year (see my post after the reversal) more than your boy sizemore just proves my point.



This is just a case of "I told you so." I told everyone he was out for the year back when they reversed the move. The only losers are the teams in LV9, and possibly the other 299 teams if Slackerbrothers win it all.



End of Story.

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Corkedbats:

hey dvy,



So if you were in LV 9 would you want slackers to have bonds and the zero's? or would you want them to kick your arse and win it all on a reversal? I don't follow you at all. Do I want a reversal to retroactively allow something in the past? No.



Are you saying that this Slackers team is in first place in your league and would have acquired Bonds and gotten nothing from them and you think that would have made your team more competitive?



Just talk to me... don't try to be slick just tell me what your upset about. The judgment was fair at the time. There was no reason to think Bonds couldn't have come back and be an impact player. He averages a homer just about every 3rd game, bats well over .300 ... has one of the best slugging percentages in history, etc.



Truth is if you said he wouldn't play this year you were right, but that doesn't change the facts that the decision at that time was appropriate.



I had figured Bonds back on May 16 so I spent my 2nd round pick on him. I've still got a good team, but clearly I was wrong. Who knew with all of today's modern medicine that they would let such an obvious thing as an infection develop AND in fact let it develop so severely that it needed followup surgery? That's just bad luck... nothing more, nothing less.



Nomar's groin was easier to predict...



Dyv



[ August 03, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Dyv ]

[Greg Ambrosius]

It's a fine post CorkedBats. I stand by my decision with Bonds and have since made other decisions involving cut players that could go either way. Now that Bonds is unlikely to play this year, it makes our decision not to allow Bonds in the free agent pool look wrong. So be it. Someone cut Roy Halladay in another league thinking he would be out the rest of the year and we put Halladay to the side. Now that looks like a good move for the entire contest.



I have no problem with you picking out decisions that are controversial and appear to be one-sided now. The entire intent of us watching the free agent cuts and making the decision we made on Bonds in May was that we want everyone in every league to have equal access to free agents. It's not fair for the 19 other leagues that don't have access to top players. At the time of this cut, Bonds was still considered a top player, even if you already knew he would be out for the year.



SlackerDan wasn't happy with our decision at the time, but he understood why we did it and he continued to play out the season rather than pout. Don't point to this decision by us as helping him lead LV 9. Those two guys deserve all the credit for leading their team to first place.



Thanks again for the nice post. I have absolutely NO problem with the decision we made on Bonds. I stand by it and will make that decision again. You're free to voice your opinion and I respect that. But it's time to move on.

[Corkedbats]

Greg,

Thanks for taking the time to respond that means a lot to me. I know you stand be your decision and I respect you for that, even though I don't agree with it now or then. I was just trying to point out if the guy's NAME was Marquis Grissom there wouldn't be all the mass hysteria surrounding your decision. Let me repeat, if his NAME wasn't Bonds it would be a different story. Everyone gets caught up in the NAME game, it happens in every league. You might not be able to trade a healthy Reggie Sanders for Johan Santana based on the NAMES, but if you stripped away the NAMES and looked only at the #'s ONLY then one could make a case for it, that is if trading were ever allowed.

There were hundreds of guys dropped this season in all the leagues that people wish they could have back, and that's part of the game. But when it's a guy at the end of his career and he's 42 years old and no one over 40 has ever hit more than 50 homers in a season, why all the great expectations for a Roided out a-hole with a bum knee? Heck even Juan Gonzalez out performed Barry this year!

I just think everyone that wanted him or was dumb enough to draft him deserves what they get- NOTHING ZER0S! That was my main argument, that slacker brothers should have been PUNISHED for taking that ahole onto their roster. It would have served them right to think a 42 year old ointment rubbing ahole could help them.





question who would you rather have?

player A 10-6 150IP 3.65 ERA

player B 15-5 145IP 3.40 ERA





If player B gets dropped will you reverse the move since he's a 15 game winner? There is no CLEAR cut critera on the players you chose to reverse, so I kindly ask that you don't get soooo caught up in the NAMES! Numbers win championships not names!





Player A went in the first round and if he were dropped I am sure you would reverse it, Player B went late/ undrafted in most leagues.





Answer: player A) J. Santana player B) John Garland (aka Roger Pavlick)



Go Slacker Brothers!



Viva bonds and the clear

[Greg Ambrosius]

It wasn't so much the name BONDS as it was the potential impact he could have over the last half of the season if he came back as a healthy BONDS. We all know that a healthy BONDS would have gone in the first round on Draft Day, or at least Top 20. So a healthy Bonds over the second half of the season could have hit .340-20-50-4, conservatively. No way those numbers should be available in a free agent pool in May. That's how I decided and I stick by it.



I respect your passion on this and I respect that you stay consistent on your thoughts of this. I stand by my decision and will continue to monitor the cuts in all 20 leagues each week and act accordingly. I hope I don't have to make any more moves, but if so, I hope they are the right ones.

[Dyv]

Originally posted by Corkedbats:



a guy at the end of his career and he's 42 years old and no one over 40 has ever hit more than 50 homers in a season



I am truly and sincerely jealous... I wish my mind was this simple and I could ignore all reason or logic. Sadly, I carry my burden heavily...



Did you know he hit 45 just last year when he was simply a 41 year old? Throw in 101 RBI and a .362 batting avg. and you get a decent fantasy player.



No one over 40 has hit 50 HR in a year before? Right, then again only 18 players in the history of major league baseball have hit over 50 HR in a season before, so your point is ridiculous and irrelevant.



You can't just IMAGINE that someone here said he'd hit 50 HR and then go on about it as if you're proving a point. NOBODY said that.



You can't see the logic that if he had a 10% downturn due to being 1 year older and he played 2/3 of a season you can take his 45 from last year, reduce it by 5 to get to 40 and then give him 2/3 of that to reach about 33 HR as a guess?



CLEARLY I was wrong in my assessment of Bonds production this year and you were CLEARLY right if it's true that you said he wouldn't produce.



I wish you would have shared that tidbit of your knowledge before draft day!



Dyv

[a]

Too funny, let's look at the track record of Grissom and look at the track record of Bonds. Who would have you wanted? Hindsight is 20/20. I knew I shouls have bought some Google IPO, I knew I should have played 378 yesterday in the lotto, I knew I should not have married my wife. Life would be grand if I knew what the future was going to hold....



Greg made the correct call at the time with the information we had. Greg also made another decision with new current information.



Edit to add: I feel sorry for the morons who drafted the old man Bonds last year, At 40 years old, he was not worth it at all, they really made a bad decision. :rolleyes:



[ August 03, 2005, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Vega$ Gambler$ ]

[Corkedbats]

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:

Too funny, let's look at the track record of Grissom and look at the track record of Bonds. Who would have you wanted? Hindsight is 20/20. I knew I shouls have bought some Google IPO, I knew I should have played 378 yesterday in the lotto, I knew I should not have married my wife. Life would be grand if I knew what the future was going to hold....



Greg made the correct call at the time with the information we had. Greg also made another decision with new current information.



Edit to add: I feel sorry for the morons who drafted the old man Bonds last year, At 40 years old, he was not worth it at all, they really made a bad decision. :rolleyes: Hey vegas lady,



This isn't my first post on this subject, if you go back you can read my org. post about Bonds. So stop being such an ******* about it.





FYI heard a great stat this morning...of all the players with 500 homers Raffy had the lowest hr total the first 5 years, followed by BONDS followed by Sosa....hmmmh

[a]

Originally posted by Corkedbats:

Hey vegas lady,



This isn't my first post on this subject, if you go back you can read my org. post about Bonds. So stop being such an ******* about it.





FYI heard a great stat this morning...of all the players with 500 homers Raffy had the lowest hr total the first 5 years, followed by BONDS followed by Sosa....hmmmh [/QB]Correct me if I'm wrong, you brought the subject up and started the thread (actually, you started 2 of them (newbie poster?))



Point of order, you are looking hindsight, not to the future. You can only make determinations with information you have TODAY. At the time, Greg made the correct decision withthe information he had ON THAT DAY!



As far as the 3 players you mention, are you saying that they improved with age? So I guess this only strengthens Greg decision at the time, bonds is high production player even though he is up there is age. (IE- that is called a track record)



BTW- If I was in 2nd grade, I might be mad about your "insults", But being an adult, it only entertained me.