Last post on Jack Cust

Red Sox Nation · Post by **Red Sox Nation** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:53 am

Gekko,

This is what you wrote on May 19th when you started your tirade.

"Why is Jack Cust eligible at OF? In 2006 Cust appeared in 4 major league games. 1 as an OF and 3 as a pinch hitter. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (see rule below), Cust should only be allowed to be played at U.

I see some teams have him in the OF this week. If he should only be U eligible, to protect the integrity of the contest, will Cust's stats be removed from teams that played him at an illegal position?

[ May 19, 2007, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

You started Jack Cust in your OF last week in the $1250 mixed auction!!!! You knew he was OF eligible on monday morning, May 14th, when you put him in the OF. I see this week you swapped Shawn Green from UTIL to OF and moved Cust to UTIL.

WOW!!

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 am

Originally posted by Red Sox Nation:

Gekko,

This is what you wrote on May 19th when you started your tirade.

"Why is Jack Cust eligible at OF? In 2006 Cust appeared in 4 major league games. 1 as an OF and 3 as a pinch hitter. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (see rule below), Cust should only be allowed to be played at U.

I see some teams have him in the OF this week. If he should only be U eligible, to protect the integrity of the contest, will Cust's stats be removed from teams that played him at an illegal position?

[ May 19, 2007, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

You started Jack Cust in your OF last week in the $1250 mixed auction!!!! You knew he was OF eligible on monday morning, May 14th, when you put him in the OF. I see this week you swapped Shawn Green from UTIL to OF and moved Cust to UTIL.

WOW!! that's correct. i am a Cust owner and i am saying his position eligibility is incorrect.

Red Sox Nation · Post by **Red Sox Nation** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:05 am

Do you also think you should lose his stats as you originally suggested for playing him at an illegal position?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 22, 2007 1:59 am

Originally posted by Red Sox Nation:

Do you also think you should lose his stats as you originally suggested for playing him at an illegal position? i threw a couple of ideas out there for cust owners using him as OF. and yes, one was losing his stats.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue May 22, 2007 2:43 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote: that's correct. i am a Cust owner and i am saying his position eligibility is incorrect. [/QB][/QUOTE]Since this is the last post on Jack Cust, I'll add a final note as well. The position eligibility of Cust was asked, I explained my reasoning for why he earned outfield status and I've stated that the ruling stands. I've also explained why I gave certain position eligibility to three other examples similar to Cust before an NFBC season. Not everyone has to agree with these decisions, nor does everyone have to agree with every other decision we make here, but the bottom line is that Cust remains an outfielder.

I have absolutely no problem with any rules questions or any disputes about final decisions. It's just that some folks do that in different ways. But with 375 different members in the main event and 600+ unique members in all our events, it's my job to deal with every personality possible.

I have a feeling that if we had made Cust UT only we would have heard from owners who read the rules correctly, bid correctly and had never heard of any other player eligibility issues. The rules were correctly applied to Cust after his callup.

Cust is an outfielder as the rules state. The games continue. If you want to continue the debate, call me or e-mail me. I'll gladly answer your questions the old fashioned way. Or if this continues to be the end-all topic for you, carry on.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:48 am

Originally posted by Red Sox Nation:

Gekko,

This is what you wrote on May 19th when you started your tirade.

"Why is Jack Cust eligible at OF? In 2006 Cust appeared in 4 major league games. 1 as an OF and 3 as a pinch hitter. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (see rule below), Cust should only be allowed to be played at U.

I see some teams have him in the OF this week. If he should only be U eligible, to protect the integrity of the contest, will Cust's stats be removed from teams that played him at an illegal position?

[ May 19, 2007, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

You started Jack Cust in your OF last week in the $1250 mixed auction!!!! You knew he was OF eligible on monday morning, May 14th, when you put him in the OF. I see this week you swapped Shawn Green from UTIL to OF and moved Cust to UTIL.

WOW!! All this time we've been arguing with the evil little weasel about Cust's eligibility, he had Cust plugged in at OF in another league...

wow

crazytown · Post by **crazytown** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:08 am

Not 100% sure of everyone's injury status for the Oakland Athletics, but here are a few names. Harden,Street,Piazza, Kotsay. I believe Kotsay could be returning soon. I believe there to be a decent chance of Cust returning to the minors when some of these players return.

He is however, having significant impact while in the lineup.

Thank you and have a nice day.

sranaghan · Post by **sranaghan** » Tue May 22, 2007 4:46 am

he wont be going anywhere the way he is hitting right now...

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:34 am

I believe there to be a decent chance of Cust returning to the minors when some of these players return.

Greg, did Tom botch the drug tests again???

Just having some fun with you crazytown. It would be sort of funny though if he did get sent down after all of this.

[ May 22, 2007, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: poopy tooth ]