Mark Reynolds Is A SS In The NFBC

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:09 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

i've asked last night and today for the transaction to be rescinded as i didn't need a SS (although i value him slight higher than a.gonzalez this week), he was not worth dropping germano for. i already had 2 SS for this week.

now lineups have locked and reynolds is still on my team?!? i haven't received an email or MB post from the NFBC addressing my request. i wonder if i'm being punished for my non-agreement on the Cust ruling or if the customer service was lacking today. either way the frustration mounts on this end. esp since i was strongly considering starting germano over guthrie this week. I will publicly answer this post. You have e-mailed me more than a half dozen times in the last two days about Cust and you have had no problem reaching me when you've needed. At no point in all of the past e-mails that I can find did you ONCE mention Reynolds. I didn't even know you owned Reynolds until I saw one of your posts last night. If you think "i've asked last night and today for the transaction to be rescinded" means posting on the Message Boards, then again we have a miscommunication. I did not read every single post you made on these boards nor should I look on here for player moves. Contact me personally if you needed a change made.

There is no vindication towards you for asking an eligibility question about Cust. I wish you the same good fortune the rest of the way as anyone else. But there are proper channels to ask for player changes and again you contacted me 6+ times yesterday and never once brought this up. Reynolds remains on your team just like everyone else who bid for him fairly and got him.

There was no lack of customer service yesterday. In fact, I think I spent a whole day on that.

[ May 22, 2007, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:53 am

I too got stuck in the Reynolds scenario thinking that he was 3B qualified based on the FA searches in my satellite league. This sitauation is forcing me to play Blalock for another week in spite of the fact that he is on the DL since I have no other CI to play. Frustrating to be sure.

As for the Cust situation, I agree that he should only be a UT. I was one of the Fielder owners in the past that was forced to use him as a UT until he qualified at 1B but in the grand scheme of things it probably did not play a big part in my poor finish that year anyway. Although I think that Cust will revert to his old ways, he has amassed a number of homeruns that could have a huge impact on league and overall standings. Bottom line here I think is that the key needs to be consistency and that has not been the case here. Just my 2 cents worth. Thanks.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:56 am

I will also add that today I'll call STATS and go over the player position designations that are given each one in our NFBC data base and see if there are any errors from our rules. I'll also continue to pursue having the position designation removed that shows where a player is currently playing as that has no bearing on his position eligibility. I'll provide updates here.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:45 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

GG, misfortunate you relied on that meaningless label rather than pulling down the list of eligible 3bsso because i relied on STATS position designation RIGHT NEXT TO HIS NAME, I'm in error? [/QUOTE]Yeah Gek, sportsline does the same thing and I assume most services do. They label the player based on some universal rule within their database, however individual leagues within sportsline may have rules that make that player's eligiblity different than the database label. There is a separate place to look for that in sportsline, as there is in STATS (the FA position drop-down list). I'm not saying it's a good idea, just saying that's the way it has been for a long time with STATS and other services. Getting STATS to show actual eligibility, or at least dump the label, would be a very good idea.