Week 9 FAAB Bids

RODGER · Post by **RODGER** » Mon May 29, 2006 9:22 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

It's not a tough decision as the rule needs to apply fairly to all 22 main event leagues.Greg--

You don't see that this approach also sets one league apart from the other 21 in a significant way?

The teams bidding for Weaver will have an extra week to observe his performance, and they have the advantage of seeing how the other 21 leagues did their bidding.

Why should this group get extra time before determining who nets the kid?

The choice seems to be cut and dry:

-- 1) These teams get more time and info to analyze the situation before bidding.

OR

-- 2) These teams end up getting less time, in hindsight, to decide where Weaver ends up.

IF THE CHOICE IS EITHER MORE OR LESS, HOW CAN YOU OPT FOR MORE? Creating an unfair advantage for one league's teams hardly seems like the prudent choice. If it has to be more or less, which it does in this case, the better of two evils is clearly LESS.

Increasing the magnitude of a mistake by making another mistake is not in the spirit of the greater good or the integrity of the overall event.

RODGER · Post by **RODGER** » Mon May 29, 2006 9:26 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

In Round 30, it wasn't tough for the facilitators and the other owners to miss this one.It wasn't the 30th round. It was Round 18.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 29, 2006 12:11 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The stickers don't correspond with our rules. We just purchase the draft boards and stickers from a good company; they don't comply the positions and names to our system.I suppose that in 2007, you can make sure that each league has stickers that exactly correspond to the eligible player list. No sticker, no pick.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon May 29, 2006 12:25 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

because Chicago 3 now has a much better idea of Weaver's worth, which was an advantage that other leagues didn't have.

Each week of action determines that sunday's Faab value. What if Jeff throws a great game and Jered gets bombed this week? When Colon comes back they may very well send Jered back to AAA. I'm sure he won't be commanding a 3-5 spot with that hanging over his head

RODGER · Post by **RODGER** » Mon May 29, 2006 12:35 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The stickers don't correspond with our rules. We just purchase the draft boards and stickers from a good company; they don't comply the positions and names to our system.I suppose that in 2007, you can make sure that each league has stickers that exactly correspond to the eligible player list. No sticker, no pick. [/QUOTE]The fact that the stickers didn't match up perfectly on draft day is a very minor point.

When the rules stated that ALL ELIGIBLE PLAYERS for the draft would appear on the provided lists, that was a rule for team owners to follow as much as it was the job of facilitators and event management to enforce.

It's not as if the teams of Chicago League 3 are entirely beyond reproach regarding this problem. Mistakes were made by the facilitators AND the team owners of the league.

I know that at least one league had a team attempt to draft Carlos Quentin. It was another team owner, NOT a facilitator, who explained that the player was ineligible for the draft.

When you consider that Jered Weaver was selected in the 18th round of the Chicago League 3 draft, there was more than an hour remaining for the group to discover the error that day.

At the very least, you would think that one of the 14 other teams might have checked the provided lists during the break after Round 20.

When a player taken in the 18th round doesn't have a sticker, a light bulb should probably appear over somebody's head.

The teams of Chicago League 3 don't deserve any harsh penalty for their role in not preventing the Weaver pick from going through. However, they were one of the three groups that dropped the ball.

If you MUST choose between a small penalty, or a significant REWARD, it's pretty obvious what needs to be done.

You CANNOT justify REWARDING the teams of this league because of a problem that they could have prevented if they had paid closer attention to the rules.

[ May 30, 2006, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: RODGER ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 29, 2006 1:18 pm

Originally posted by RODGER:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

The stickers don't correspond with our rules. We just purchase the draft boards and stickers from a good company; they don't comply the positions and names to our system.I suppose that in 2007, you can make sure that each league has stickers that exactly correspond to the eligible player list. No sticker, no pick. [/QUOTE]The fact that the stickers didn't match up perfectly on draft day is a very minor point.[/QUOTE]Perhaps it is a minor point, but the bottom line is that people make mistakes -- having the correct stickers will make it less likely for these mistakes to happen.

Here's another idea for next year that will help eliminate a similar problem: make ONE list that determines eligibility AND position. Telling people to "check the website" (i.e. an additional aource that is not available to most on draft day) creates confusion. This list should be distributed to all entrants at least 2 weeks prior to draft day, and not subject to change.

RODGER · Post by **RODGER** » Mon May 29, 2006 1:24 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Here's another idea for next year that will help eliminate a similar problem: make ONE list that determines eligibility AND position. Telling people to "check the website" (i.e. an additional aource that is not available to most on draft day) creates confusion. This list should be distributed to all entrants at least 2 weeks prior to draft day, and not subject to change. You really can't have that. The list of players is in flux right up through the draft. A cutoff date must be chosen as close to draft day as possible.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Mon May 29, 2006 7:10 pm

Just an idea....

40-man rosters and any players ranked 1-5 by Baseball America for each team.

Why Brandon Wood was eligible and Alex Gordon wasn't was beyond me.

Also, assign someone to do the players and poisitons on one sheet of paper a week before the draft in excel. Then send it to all.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 29, 2006 11:31 pm

Originally posted by UFS:

Just an idea....

40-man rosters and any players ranked 1-5 by Baseball America for each team.

Why Brandon Wood was eligible and Alex Gordon wasn't was beyond me.

Also, assign someone to do the players and poisitons on one sheet of paper a week before the draft in excel. Then send it to all. My thoughts almost exactly. You would also need to include NRIs that appear extremely likely to make the team, and "special" free agents (Roger Clemens). Still, as previously noted, a single source is of paramount importance. Having it in Excel, and sorting it alphabetically, would be a great cross-check for facilitators and league owners alike.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:37 am

I have a pretty alternativde idea on how to resolve, as I think the two extremes (Mgr keeps Jered and Mgr has to through him back) may be a bit unfair one way or the other.

Okay, the Mgr should get to keep Jered but at an additional cost. In addition, the knucklehead who drafted him in the first place should contribute towards such costs. I think the cost itself should be the average winning bid for Jered on Sunday. So if the average is $250 and the Mgr oroginally got him for $43, then that Mgr and the drafting mgr should have to split the additional $203 cost. I would even agree that the drfating mgr should have to pay more than 50% of the additional cost.

:rolleyes:

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue May 30, 2006 3:51 am

Originally posted by RODGER:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

It's not a tough decision as the rule needs to apply fairly to all 22 main event leagues.The teams bidding for Weaver will have an extra week to observe his performance, and they have the advantage of seeing how the other 21 leagues did their bidding. [/QUOTE]Weaver went between $121 and $536 this week in the other leagues. What could Chicago League 3 possibly learn from the wide range of bids last week? If an owner in Chicago League 3 wants him bad enough this week, he will bid by looking at the remaining FAAB in his league and making a decision that is right for his/her team. This isn't the Price Is Right where he can bid $537 and get Weaver.

Weaver is back in the free agent pool for Chicago League 3. They can watch his Friday outing and make a decision whether he's the real deal or not. If anything, the league is being punished by not getting one extra start out of him for whichever owner has the winning bid.

Thanks for the input everyone. And good luck to everyone who has Jeff's little brother.

Brian Walton · Post by **Brian Walton** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:21 am

I am not debating the resolution of the particular issue in the league in question, but am reinforcing the request already made to have a spreadsheet-based list as THE source for player eligibility questions.

As-is, we seem to be placing too much dependency on stickers that we already know by default will not be 100% accurate, since they need to be printed well in advance of the drafts.

The electronic list would make draft preparation for the NFBC participants easier and if the spreadsheet was the first source checked by the facilitators during the draft instead of the stickers, perhaps this kind of mistake could be averted in the future.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue May 30, 2006 10:49 am

Originally posted by brian:

I am not debating the resolution of the particular issue in the league in question, but am reinforcing the request already made to have a spreadsheet-based list as THE source for player eligibility questions.

As-is, we seem to be placing too much dependency on stickers that we already know by default will not be 100% accurate, since they need to be printed well in advance of the drafts.

The electronic list would make draft preparation for the NFBC participants easier and if the spreadsheet was the first source checked by the facilitators during the draft instead of the stickers, perhaps this kind of mistake could be averted in the future. We did e-mail a link to the team-by-team 40-man rosters plus additional free agents and rookies to all team owners a week before the draft. Those lists were by team, not by position and they were also available in print form when you registered on Draft Day. That being said, we will do a better job next year of making sure the lists are clearer for everyone.

The stickers will never be a source for this as we buy them from a company who produces them for all drafts, not just the NFBC. The facilitators also get these lists, but I should have caught these miscues and alerted the owners immediately after the drafts.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:03 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

That being said, we will do a better job next year of making sure the lists are clearer for everyone.Excellent news -- not that this year's draft lists were terrible, but they could have been better. Remember that things move very quickly on draft day, and people don't have a lot of time to check a handout printed in size 4 font

While the list that was provided was not very "user friendly", I am sure you'll come up with an improvement for 2007.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Tue May 30, 2006 12:08 pm

Greg,

A couple of small suggestions:

1. KOQ's idea is spot on. The labels should match who can be picked.

2. Make the list alphabetical by team and list AFTER each players name their EXACT position elgibility (This can be very difficult as NFBC's rules are different than most)

Not related, but helpful:

3. Currently STATS still doesn't show a players elgibility on the 'Set Lineup' page after the players name. You get one elgibility that seems to be arbitrarily decided and the only way to see is to look at the profile page or to click on the drop downs individually. A real pain!

Thanks

Chris

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Tue May 30, 2006 2:27 pm

KOQ's idea is spot on. The labels should match who can be picked. I don't agree necessarily. This might work but in some way (and whatever way is easiest and best for them) the nfbc needs to take responsibility not only for who is eligible to be drafted but who is drafted. It is not enough to say if we were lucky enough to have a draft facilitator to advise us properly then things worked out. You can't say it is the responsibility of the team owners because in some leagues facilitators allowed these moves and in some they didn't. If the nfbc said, "We won't stop you from making an illegal pick, but if you do, he won't legally accrue stats for your team," then that would be fine b/c everyone is treated equally. The way it worked, the nfbc stopped moves if they caught them. They have to take responsibility and treat every league equally.

I'd be irate if I carried around an illegal pick for months that they eventually told me I couldn't use, while others were advised and stopped from making the same pick, therefore not losing a draft pick and a roster spot.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:47 pm

What a bunch of old women!

For those of you who are making constructive suggestions to improve what is already an EXCELLENT process, way to go!

I may be misreading, but some of you appear to be griping because something did not occur that was 100% perfect. Bummer! What normally occurs (in my experience) when such errors occur is that no benefit is obtained. That appears to be the case here. If benefit is obtained, the NFBC has controls in place to mitigate. In short, to me the system seems to work well.

Greg, just from my point of view, I felt the rules as they applied to who was eligable were clear. I reviewed and understood the eligability list when it was provided and I felt the list came to me in a timely manner.

If NFBC custom sticker sheets can be obtained, fine. That would remove one responsibility from facilitators and might speed up the draft, but the improvement would be minor (mainly because there would be fewer sheets to shift through).

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed May 31, 2006 1:46 am

Hi Wayne,

Ideas that will eliminate what happened in Chicago League 3 this year with Jered Weaver should be welcomed, not riciduled.

Constructive criticism is almost always helpful--many of the rules enhancements over the last 3 seasons have come from simple suggestions right here on the message boards.

Sorry to ruin your day...

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed May 31, 2006 6:04 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Hi Wayne,

Ideas that will eliminate what happened in Chicago League 3 this year with Jered Weaver should be welcomed, not riciduled.

Constructive criticism is almost always helpful--many of the rules enhancements over the last 3 seasons have come from simple suggestions right here on the message boards.

Sorry to ruin your day... No ruining my day at all. If you read the post, I am not ridiculing constructive criticism at all. Not to speak for Greg, but he has always indicated that he welcomes it and uses them to make the process better.

As I said in my post, I hope I did not misread what some have posted, and everyone paid their money and are free to comment, but it just seemed to me some are negative in there approach and not very appreciative of what is a good process.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:38 pm

Honestly...

How much effort do you believe it would take to have the facilitators (or any volunteer) simply write those names onto blank stickers?

1/2 hour?

~Lance

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:35 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: KOQ's idea is spot on. The labels should match who can be picked. I don't agree necessarily. This might work but in some way (and whatever way is easiest and best for them) the nfbc needs to take responsibility not only for who is eligible to be drafted but who is drafted. It is not enough to say if we were lucky enough to have a draft facilitator to advise us properly then things worked out. You can't say it is the responsibility of the team owners because in some leagues facilitators allowed these moves and in some they didn't. If the nfbc said, "We won't stop you from making an illegal pick, but if you do, he won't legally accrue stats for your team," then that would be fine b/c everyone is treated equally. The way it worked, the nfbc stopped moves if they caught them. They have to take responsibility and treat every league equally.

I'd be irate if I carried around an illegal pick for months that they eventually told me I couldn't use, while others were advised and stopped from making the same pick, therefore not losing a draft pick and a roster spot. [/QUOTE]Bjoak: I don't understand your rebuttal of the idea AT ALL. Your response doesn't address the point I was making (i.e. supporint KoQ on stickers)

KoQ's idea was simply to have 1 set of stickers that ONLY had elgible players. Obviously will reduce the chance of a problem it <1% Why? Because, everyone will know that there is something to be double checked if a name cannot be found. As copared to the last 2 years where people kept writing in stuff and we kept having to call on Greg to figure out if someone was elgible

Spy

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:39 am

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: KOQ's idea is spot on. The labels should match who can be picked. I don't agree necessarily. This might work but in some way (and whatever way is easiest and best for them) the nfbc needs to take responsibility not only for who is eligible to be drafted but who is drafted. It is not enough to say if we were lucky enough to have a draft facilitator to advise us properly then things worked out. You can't say it is the responsibility of the team owners because in some leagues facilitators allowed these moves and in some they didn't. If the nfbc said, "We won't stop you from making an illegal pick, but if you do, he won't legally accrue stats for your team," then that would be fine b/c everyone is treated equally. The way it worked, the nfbc stopped moves if they caught them. They have to take responsibility and treat every league equally.

I'd be irate if I carried around an illegal pick for months that they eventually told me I couldn't use, while others were advised and stopped from making the same pick, therefore not losing a draft pick and a roster spot. [/QUOTE]Bjoak: I don't understand your rebuttal of the idea AT ALL. Your response doesn't address the point I was making (i.e. supporint KoQ on stickers)

KoQ's idea was simply to have 1 set of stickers that ONLY had elgible players. Obviously will reduce the chance of a problem it [/QUOTE]I don't disagree on the idea at all. But your post stated the sticker idea should be done. I disagree. I don't care how they fix it as long as they do. If they have a better idea and it's easier for them, that is fine--as long as we don't have this problem again.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:21 pm

Things move very quickly on draft day, and there's not a lot of time to verify an obscure selection. Team owners and draft facilitators need an easy reference point to ensure--ON THE SPOT--that legal picks are being made. If the stickers can't be modified to fit our rules, I think the alphabetized spreadsheet is probably the way to go.