Jack Cust Is OF Eligible In The NFBC

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:18 am

I've started a new thread here to discuss the Jack Cust situation so that we can get the facts straight. Cust will remain OF eligible in all NFBC leagues as his designation stated when he was picked up via free agency two weeks ago. According to our rules:

"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."

Cust played one game in the outfield for San Diego last year and pinch-hit three times. Pinch-hitting is NOT a position and thus STATS placed him at outfield correctly. We have never ruled differently DURING THE SEASON on this rule.

NFBC owners bid on Cust based on his OF designation and have used him there as he was designated. He was an outfielder in the minors in 2006, he was an outfielder in the minors in 2007 and he played his only position in the outfield with the Padres last year. Thus I left his outfield designation as soon as he was allowed in the NFBC.

BEFORE THE SEASON, I designate where players qualify at each position based on their games played the year before. We do not use Pinch-hitting AS A POSITION in that evaluation and have explained every exception to all of the participants beforehand. This year, Cust was not drafted in any league and he was not on any of the draft materials we handed out to owners as having OF-only or UT-only eligibility. I wish he had been.

The three exceptions we've made to the letter of the rule BEFORE THE SEASON in the past have been:

Ramon Castro, UT, 2004: Castro failed to catch 20 games in 2003 and actually pinch-hit more often than he caught. I did not view him as a late season minor-league callup as he was on the team for a good portion of the season and ruled that he was UT-only because that's exactly the role he played with the Marlins; he was a Utility player.

Prince Fielder, UT, 2006: Fielder was with the Brewers for almost 1/3 of the season in 2005, although he did retain his rookie status. He played first base seven games, DH four and pinch-hit 30 times. I ruled that the Brewers used him as a UT player for most of his callup and did not give him 1B eligibility to start the 2006 season.

Kevin Kouzmanoff, DH, 2007: Kouzmanoff was a DH 14 times last September with Cleveland, played third base twice and pinch-hit once. I felt he was a DH in 2006 and thus to start 2007 he was not allowed to qualify at third base in the NFBC.

All three players were viewed as UT-only players from the year before and thus the NFBC designated their positions as such BEFORE THE SEASON when all participants had access to that information. Cust was designated his position according to the letter of the rule as nowhere in the rules does it state that Pinch-hitting is a position. To assume that we would change his designation after the fact was wrong.

If there is a precedent being set, it's that the letter of the eligibility rule will be followed during the season as it has been stated in the rules. We did not divert from that in the past, but truthfully this is the first example of a situation like this in the four years of the NFBC during the season.

We will evaluate our position eligibility process for the following seasons at the end of this season. Everything needs to be consistent. Everything needs to be explained. Everything needs to be accurate on the site when you bid for players. I work hand-in-hand with STATS to make this as accurate as possible. If changes are needed, we'll make them.

In this case, STATS had Cust at the position we agreed on and owners bid accordingly, following the designation of our rules. I'm sorry if owners felt differently when they saw Cust become available in free agency.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:26 am

If you don't count pinch hitting as a position, why didn't fielder qualify at 1B in 2006? As you stated, he had more games played as a 1B than a DH. Thanks.

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

Maybe I'm dense but the rule says that "minor leaguers" who did not play 20 games at any position in 2006 but who still played at least one game in the majors in 2006 will qualify at position most played in majors.

First question: Is Cust considered a minor leaguer?

Second question: If so, since he played more than 20 games in the outfield in 2006 for his minor league team, why are you considering his few at bats in the majors?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:38 am

Originally posted by Raiders:

First question: Is Cust considered a minor leaguer?

Second question: If so, since he played more than 20 games in the outfield in 2006 for his minor league team, why are you considering his few at bats in the majors? position eligibility as defined by the rules, is determined by looking at the player's 2006 major league games played.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:49 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

If you don't count pinch hitting as a position, why didn't fielder qualify at 1B in 2006? As you stated, he had more games played as a 1B than a DH. Thanks. You are correct. According to the letter of the rule, he would qualify at first base and as you know he qualifed at first base during his callup in 2005. But the Brewers refused to play him at first base that season because he was so bad defensively and made a conscious effort to only use him as a utility player, a pinch-hitter. I didn't feel NFBC owners should get the benefit of having him eligible at first base when for 55 games he was a utility player for the Brewers. I made the contest tougher to start 2006 and I made everyone aware of that. He was eligible at 1B during his callup in 2005, but we started him at UT in 2006 because that's what he was, a utility player.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:52 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

According to the letter of the rule, he would qualify at first base Are you saying we can't count on what the rules indicate?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:52 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Raiders:

First question: Is Cust considered a minor leaguer?

Second question: If so, since he played more than 20 games in the outfield in 2006 for his minor league team, why are you considering his few at bats in the majors? position eligibility as defined by the rules, is determined by looking at the player's 2006 major league games played. [/QUOTE]Yes, Cust is considered a minor-leaguer, a career minor-leaguer!! ;D And GG is correct, according to the rules his eligibility is based on his 2006 appearance. I will admit, however, that I did take into account the fact that he has played outfield in the minors in 2006 and 2007 to verify where we had him qualified as I felt he was an outfielder. He has also played three games in the outfield with the A's, not that that fact matters in this case.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:53 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I will admit, however, that I did take into account the fact that he has played outfield in the minors in 2006 and 2007 to verify where we had him qualified as I felt he was an outfielder. where does it say this in the Rules that everyone signed up for?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:54 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

According to the letter of the rule, he would qualify at first base Are you saying we can't count on what the rules indicate? [/QUOTE]

I've seen you play word games on these message boards with people much smarter than me in the past, GG. But I'm no fool. From all this on Cust, you took this sentence from Fielder to bait me?? I thought you knew me better than that.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:57 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

According to the letter of the rule, he would qualify at first base Are you saying we can't count on what the rules indicate? [/QUOTE]

I've seen you play word games on these message boards with people much smarter than me in the past, GG. But I'm no fool. From all this on Cust, you took this sentence from Fielder to bait me?? I thought you knew me better than that. [/QUOTE]no bait. you said the words, "According to the letter of the rule, he would qualify at first base". again, my question is, can nfbc'ers count on the Rules stated?

[ May 21, 2007, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:58 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I will admit, however, that I did take into account the fact that he has played outfield in the minors in 2006 and 2007 to verify where we had him qualified as I felt he was an outfielder. where does it say this in the Rules that everyone signed up for? [/QUOTE]Why don't you just call me on the 20th century telephone and scream? I'm a big boy. I can take it. At least now I'm on the ground and can answer your e-mails. You had my Blackberry humming yesterday. Now act like I know you can and just call me up on the phone. How hard is that?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:01 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Why don't you just call me on the 20th century telephone and scream? I'm a big boy. I can take it. At least now I'm on the ground and can answer your e-mails. You had my Blackberry humming yesterday. Now act like I know you can and just call me up on the phone. How hard is that? no thanks. you're not going to sweettalk me into buying into this BS. we have a number of folks who are interested in this ruling and why i think it is wrong. unless you have something to hide, the MB forum seems appropriate to me.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:17 am

c'mon Greg, turn the pic feature on, just for today ! some good stuff here

Q

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:33 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

c'mon Greg, turn the pic feature on, just for today ! some good stuff here

Q Q - you can insert a pic of me giving my walking papers for the nffc this year. I had a feeling that this was coming. As some of you know from our off-line conversations, we've felt that as the nfbc and nffc continue to grow, that customer service while good is slowly eroding. Position elgibility isn't being checked, the drop list isn't being checked, promises aren't being followed up on, etc...

Greg has already admitted that the letter of the rules weren't followed in certain circumstances, and he is making up some kind of BS about the difference in preseason and in-season eligibility. Show me where it says that in the rules or past precedent.

Don't worry, I'll let everyone know why it's time to separate ties. Not good for business greg and I've been one of your biggest supporters over the years.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:39 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

c'mon Greg, turn the pic feature on, just for today ! some good stuff here

Q We're averaging 60 spam e-mails a day on this site!!! 60 of them are from spammers and most of them from porn spammers. Tom checks them out during his free time!!

I'd love to turn the pic feature on today, but I trust we'd all soon forget about this topic and settle on something MUCH bigger!!

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:51 am

Maybe I am just slow- help me understand the difference between Cust in 07, and Fielder in 06?

The pinch hitting rule is a silly one that needs to go away.

I have no issue with a snafu- it is an event run by humans and sometimes things happen. This is toothpaste that cannot be put back in a tube. I agree with Greg's decision just not so sure at this point I support the logic behind it, I will allow him to clarify.

I would request either 1) an explanation of the difference 2) or call it what it is a mistake that we all cross our fingers does not have a meaningful impact on the money.

My thoughts on NFBC and customer service- Gordon to say it is eroding would not be something I would agree with- it has been and continues in my opinion to be good. I also think to say it is excellent would also be an exaggeration- . My constructive criticism would be to do a better job of anticipating. A few examples- a lot of confusion on Billy Butler this year and it took a great while to be answered, Cust one owner brought a legit question weeks ago, last year Quentin was allowed to be owned in some leagues for a while. I would not lump Mark Reynolds in to that crowd- it was a confusing situation but dealt with quickly.

I have said before this event works best- when owners police themselves and in a respectful way remind Greg when an issue continues to be outstanding. There is so much more right with how this event is run than wrong.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:55 am

Gekko,

You have really exceeded your annoying-ness with this one. You cry more than my 1 yr old son. He's just given up his passifier: perhaps I can mail you it.

And forget quitting the NFFC, do us all a favor and hand in your forum id.

[ May 21, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:56 am

Herein lies the problem as I see it: According to our rules, Jack Cust should be an outfielder. However, based on the position rulings of Ramon Castro and Prince Fielder, Cust should be a utility player. I think we can all agree that there would be no question about position eligibility had these exceptions to the rules not been made prior to the 2004 and 2006 seasons.

In speaking to Greg this morning, it is my understanding that Greg used pinch hitting appearances, actual days on major league rosters and other factors to determine that Castro and Fielder were Utility-only. This, in my opinion, was a mistake. While the rule regarding 20 or most games played is very straightforward, when decisions are made based on subjective reasoning it does not allow for consistent application in future positional quandries.

The Jack Cust situation demonstrates a need for no-nonsense, clear position rules. When a player appears on the free agent list over the weekend and first becomes desireable only 3 hours before the transaction deadline, there can be NO gray areas concerning his position eligibility.

My suggestions:

(1) Tighten up and clearly define position eligibility rules. If you want to have different rules for Draft Day and in-season, very well. However, this should be spelled out in the rules.

(2) Exceptions to rules only create problems later on. All position eligibility decisions, whether prior to or during the season, should remain consistent with the rules.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:57 am

ON EDIT - Well I don't know why my hyperlinks aren't working, but the facts are the facts. Also, I have no desire to play in the mud all day, but the record needs to be clear here. END EDIT

***Disclosure - I bid on Cust as soon as I saw he was called up, I had the highest bid in LV6, and have been fortunate to have him playing for 2 weeks. I would have bid on him even if he was "U" only, since I had Thome on the DL.***

Greg, your decision was the correct one. Cust was clearly identified as an OF on his player profile page, and everyone had an equal chance to pick him up on May 6th.

In another thread, Gekko tried to convince people that he believed Cust was not eligible at OF, because this type of page shows Cust with "DH" next to his name. And Gekko is correct - that page shows "DH" next to Cust's name.

But it is not Cust's profile page, which clearly shows Cust as OF eligible. And besides, Gekko's been around here long enough to know that search pages do not show all positions a player is eligible for...they only show one position.

Indeed, Gekko boxed himself in with his claims, and then later blatantly lied when confronted:

1. On this page, Mark Teahen does not have "3B" next to his name - he has "OF" next to his name.

2. Gekko has Teahen, and has played him at 3B every week.

3. When confronted, Gekko stated "i drafted teahan and he was only 3B elgible. since then i've seen that he plays only in the OF."

Now I'm not sure about the rest of you guys, but I've always believed that honesty was the cornerstone of integrity.

Regardless, the facts are the facts...

Cust played OF only last year in the majors.

Cust played OF year after year in the minors.

Cust was identified as OF on his player profile page.

Cust was listed as a FA OF, along with other FA OFs.

Everyone had an equal chance of picking him up.

These are the facts, they are indisputable, Greg made the right decision prior to people bidding on Cust, and that decision has been fully explained.

[ May 21, 2007, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: SluggoJD ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:04 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

Gekko,

You have really exceeded your annoying-ness with this one. You cry more than my 1 yr old son. He's just given up his passifier: perhaps I can mail you it.

And forget quitting the NFFC, do us all a favor and hand in your forum id. How is your one year old coming along in his analysis of league strength?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 am

Congrats to Gordon Gekko for reaching 3rd place overall in the Main Event.

Impressive.

~Lance

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:11 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by nydownunder:

Gekko,

You have really exceeded your annoying-ness with this one. You cry more than my 1 yr old son. He's just given up his passifier: perhaps I can mail you it.

And forget quitting the NFFC, do us all a favor and hand in your forum id. How is your one year old coming along in his analysis of league strength? [/QUOTE]A 1 year old doesn't allow for such analysis these days.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:21 am

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

Maybe I am just slow- help me understand the difference between Cust in 07, and Fielder in 06? This is a legitimate question. Castro was viewed by me not so much as a minor-leaguer, rather a major-leaguer who didn't play 20 games at any position. The fact that he pinch-hit so much just validated to me that he was a Utility player for the entire year. Kouzmanoff was viewed by me last year as being a DH, since that's where he played the most after his September callup. Both position eligibilites were determined by me before the start of any NFBC season.

The difference between Fielder and Cust is that I ruled on Fielder before the season and used subjective reasoning for setting his position eligibility, whereas Cust was during the season using the rules as they are stated. But as I've said, I felt Fielder was a Utility player during his callup player in 2005 and felt his time in the majors warranted more consideration than just a September callup who had no chance to play 20 games at a position. I viewed him more as a major-leaguer who didn't play 20 games at any position, rather than a late season minor-league callup. He had plenty of time to play 20 games at first base, but the Brewers wouldn't allow him to play there, instead just using him as a pinch-hitter who didn't even take the field after that.

If I erred according to the rules, it would be with Fielder's pre-season eligibility, but everyone knew where he was eligible before Draft Day and why I had him there. I viewed him more as a major-leaguer who didn't play 20 games at any position rather than a minor-league callup whose most games played were at 1B.

KOQ is correct in his assessment of consistency. I have no complaints about that request.

As for customer service, call me anytime. Tom and I haven't changed at all and believe me, we made controversial decisions during the first week of 2004 (remember guys?) and we continue to make tough decisions today. Very little has changed, even with the increase in participation, leagues and other responsibilities we have here. And we work with STATS the same way and will continue to try to fine-tune all eligibility and rules questions as they happen, just like every other fantasy contest does with their back-end provider.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:23 am

Gordon i for one can not believe how far youve taken this.Greg even said call him , but no you took your ball and went home.I also find it extreamly rude of you when if someone doesnt agree with you , you call them names like dick face.Something that happened two week's ago , and only one other person questioned this .You need to let it go, but you wont.I think down the road , you will regret fighting this nothing.

Megadeth Rules.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:39 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

Maybe I am just slow- help me understand the difference between Cust in 07, and Fielder in 06? This is a legitimate question. Castro was viewed by me not so much as a minor-leaguer, rather a major-leaguer who didn't play 20 games at any position. The fact that he pinch-hit so much just validated to me that he was a Utility player for the entire year. Kouzmanoff was viewed by me last year as being a DH, since that's where he played the most after his September callup. Both position eligibilites were determined by me before the start of any NFBC season.

The difference between Fielder and Cust is that I ruled on Fielder before the season and used subjective reasoning for setting his position eligibility, whereas Cust was during the season using the rules as they are stated. But as I've said, I felt Fielder was a Utility player during his callup player in 2005 and felt his time in the majors warranted more consideration than just a September callup who had no chance to play 20 games at a position. I viewed him more as a major-leaguer who didn't play 20 games at any position, rather than a late season minor-league callup. He had plenty of time to play 20 games at first base, but the Brewers wouldn't allow him to play there, instead just using him as a pinch-hitter who didn't even take the field after that.

If I erred according to the rules, it would be with Fielder's pre-season eligibility, but everyone knew where he was eligible before Draft Day and why I had him there. I viewed him more as a major-leaguer who didn't play 20 games at any position rather than a minor-league callup whose most games played were at 1B.

KOQ is correct in his assessment of consistency. I have no complaints about that request.

As for customer service, call me anytime. Tom and I haven't changed at all and believe me, we made controversial decisions during the first week of 2004 (remember guys?) and we continue to make tough decisions today. Very little has changed, even with the increase in participation, leagues and other responsibilities we have here. And we work with STATS the same way and will continue to try to fine-tune all eligibility and rules questions as they happen, just like every other fantasy contest does with their back-end provider. [/QUOTE]I have no issues with that answer. Gordon move on- either leave the events in the future or let it go. This event IMO is better when you are in it- I hope you stay.