Two Questions

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:32 am

I am looking for an official answer from Greg or Tom. I think I know what has been said to date but the myriad of posts makes it unreasonable to search through everything. Plus, anything that someone other than Greg or Tom says is really only conjecture.

1. Is it safe to assume that if the STATS site indicates that a player is eligible for a specific position, then he is in fact eligible for that position? We will not need to verify that he qualifies for fear of an invalid lineup? This will come more into play once guys like AROD (at 3B), Mora (at 3B) and Klesko (at OF) gain added eligibility. In essense, this means that if our bench contain 6 warm bodies, we must have a valid lineup. I guess I presume that STATS will not allow three catchers to be active at once all as catchers and not the UTIL - at least I hope not.

2. Players like Kim and Nomar and Hairston are on the DL and therefore are NOT on the official 25-man roster. Everyone knows they are definitely going to be on the 25-man roster once their DL stints are up. Are players in this status category eligible to be selected in the weekly FAAB process or will it be a free-for-all on them the Sunday after they return assuming they had been released (obviously these players would not be released but there are others in the same situation that were released)?

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:44 am

viper, to answer your questions:

1. Yes, whenever a player assumes a new position for eligibility (i.e. ARod playing 20 games at 3B), that new position will be entered into the database by STATS and he will become eligibile on his team's roster.

2. All DL players are available for bidding in free agency. The 25-man roster issue was not designed to prevent DL players from being drafted or bid on; it was established as a means to prevent un-drafted minor league players from being bid on before they were on an active MLB roster.

Hope this clarifies things.

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:47 am

to clarify, whatever STATS shows as a player's eligibility is gospel (it is Easter week)

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:50 am

Unless there is an error that needs to be corrected, yes what STATS says will be correct. I don't want to pin myself into a corner and say it's gospel because something might happen that will need to be corrected. We obviously hope that won't be the case, but rather than make an all-encompassing statement, what I said above is correct.

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:59 pm

fair enough

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:07 pm

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Unless there is an error that needs to be corrected, yes what STATS says will be correct. I don't want to pin myself into a corner and say it's gospel because something might happen that will need to be corrected. We obviously hope that won't be the case, but rather than make an all-encompassing statement, what I said above is correct. Is it fair enough to say that if we make roster moves based on STATS positions that we would be allowed some correction phase or at least just take zero from that position and not lose our entire lineup for that week?

D

TBill · Post by **TBill** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:22 pm

I posted the following in the Master Thread for Roster, Lineup, Elligibility And Other Monday Issues: "I'm not sure I get your meaning. Does this mean that if you acquire a FA, STATS software won't allow you to submit a lineup that's noncompliant due to a position inelligibillity requirement?" I got no answer. I'm glad you decided that someone was worth a response.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:28 pm

Originally posted by Dyv:

Is it fair enough to say that if we make roster moves based on STATS positions that we would be allowed some correction phase or at least just take zero from that position and not lose our entire lineup for that week?

D Dave, I have to be honest and say I really don't think we're going to run into any further eligibility issues. The system is set up so that once a player qualifies at a new position he will become eligible at that position. Greg will have to make the final ruling, but if we run into a situation where the system is late in adding a new position of eligibility for a player I do not see any reason why we would not be able to manually take care of things so that the owner is allowed to set the roster per his/her request as long as the roster is legal.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Originally posted by TBill:

I posted the following in the Master Thread for Roster, Lineup, Elligibility And Other Monday Issues: "I'm not sure I get your meaning. Does this mean that if you acquire a FA, STATS software won't allow you to submit a lineup that's noncompliant due to a position inelligibillity requirement?" I got no answer. I'm glad you decided that someone was worth a response. TBill, if I did not respond directly to a question you had, it was simply an oversight, not an intentional slight. To answer your question, you are only allowed to enter a legal roster based on the established eligibility requirements. If you submit an illegal roster for any reason you will be given an error message telling you which position(s) are creating the problem.

For future reference, if you have any questions and I don't get them on the boards, feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] or call me at (715) 445-4612 ext. 653. I'll be happy to answer whatever questions I can.

Hope this helps and my apologies again for not seeing your question in the other thread.

TBill · Post by **TBill** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:34 pm

Maybe someone will answer my question: I picked up Lankford as a FA. I inserted him in my wk1 lineup as an OF (Greg assured me by e-mail that he was elligible at that position) He appears on my Team Live Scoring list but isn't being credited with any scoring. What's the problem? (if I get an answer, thanks)[later] Tom answered promptly. Thanks, Tom

[ April 05, 2004, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: TBill ]

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:51 pm

TBill, you should be credited with Lankford's stats. Do me a favor and wait until tomorrow morning and then check your team's stats to see if Lankford is credited. If he still isn't, contact me via e-mail or by phone with your name and your league and I'll get in touch with STATS to make sure we get the problem fixed.

TBill · Post by **TBill** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:59 pm

Tom, Great. I was sure that if I could ever get through that you'd be a big help. Thanks (as promised)

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:03 pm

No problem TBill. The only reason I ask that you hold off until tomorrow morning is possibly there's a glitch that is preventing Lankford's stats from showing up now, but will be taken care of once all of today's games are done. I'm totally speculating here, but maybe that's the case and tomorrow morning all of the stats will be included. Again, if there's still a problem get in touch with me and we'll get the problem straightened out.

TBill · Post by **TBill** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 5:48 am

As you suspected, Tom, the stats updated perfectly. Thanks for your attention and quick response.