Kenny Rogers In Chicago League 2

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:29 am

An FYI for those of you in Chicago League 2: Kenny Rogers was cut this week and after consulting with Greg we have decided to allow the move to go through but we will remove Rogers from the free-agent pool. Greg had discussed earlier that this would be an option we would use if necessary rather than simply revoking a potentially controversial Drop and we're using it in this instance. So again, Rogers has been dropped in Chicago League 2 but he will not be a free agent available.

Thanks for reading.

Bobby J · Post by **Bobby J** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:15 pm

What about the league Halladay was dropped in??

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:21 pm

That move was revoked. Halladay went back to that team's roster and Damon Hollins will be dropped instead.

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:15 am

Why would someone drop Rogers? To make some kind of a statement?

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:08 pm

Would you have cut him if you knew that someone would not be able "waste" free agent dollars on him?

My point is you should be able to strategize before hand by knowing for sure the guy you will cut will eat up some league free agent dollars.

This issue will pop up again before the season is over.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:11 pm

BRAVO You couldnt have explained your self any better.You actually made a lot of sense , your gambleing on the gambler not to have much fantasy value for his last 8 weeks. I TOO LOVE JOE BLANTON and grabed him weeks ago for 1 dollar.ALSO got blanton last night in the 500.00 dollar league. WISH YOU LUCK WITH YOUR DECISION

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:44 pm

Originally posted by :

My brother and I are owners of the team that recently cut Kenny Rogers. Why, you ask, well that's an easy question to answer. Frst, lets start with the fact that the Mighty Rogers was not not even drafted in our league. After his incredible start, for 4 weeks, not one team even made an attempt to aquire him. After week 5, when Rogers had 2 wins and a 1.78 ERA we grabbed him for a high bid of a whopping $26. We loved riding out this average pitchers incredible hot streak. We rode it as long as we could until Rogers started to be Rogers and we found unheralded Joe Blanton to replace him in our started lineup. Over his last 5 starts Rogers has posted 2 wins and a 5.10 ERA and 1.50+ WHIP, he is becoming him again. He has 10 wins, and I seriously doubt he'll end the season with more than 15 wins. Plus he has a twenty game suspension that will cost him 3 of the final 10 weeks of the season. His replacement on our team, Joe Blanton has given us 2 wins and a 1.90 ERA since replacing Rogers in our starting lineup. So we got more out of Rogers than we'd ever hoped for and felt we replaced him with a more capable pitcher for the second half and had no more use for suspended and becoming quit average Kenny Rogers. Not to mention we never care for having thugs on our team, which is what Rogers has proven to be with his recent childish antics. We also were hoping that this minor transaction might force another team to spend lots of their free agent money going after a has been with misleading stats. As for the childish move on the part of the NFBC of removing this pitcher from the free agent pool, it messes with the minor strategy of ours to hope a team might overspend on Rogers even though in our opinion, and I'm sure other owners would agree, Rogers wouldn't even have been the best free agent pitcher available. Remember, he wasn't even drafted in this league and its not like he is a newcomer with unforseen potential. How Insulting. We would never collude with anyone, we're are in 7th currently, have been in the top 5 most of the season, and have never have finished below 3rd in any major fantasy league in our 15 years of co-owning teams together. We are highly insulted by the accusations bestowed upon us by this league.

Feeling like a cameraman in the face of the gambler,

Herb Goebel Good answer.

I was surprised that G&T locked him out of the waiver pool (they usually err on the side of conservative judgement). I didn't think he had that good of a track record, especially at his age, to warrant him being so valuable that he couldn't be dropped. Even more so with the suspension.

I see IMO equally or more valuable guys get dropped regularly. Blanton, for one. I dropped Arroyo last week because it looked like he would be out of the rotation - could be a stupid move since 2 days later he's back in, but at least he did burn some league FA dollars. (In the meantime I got 2 wins out of Maroth for the week). Back on point though, I probably wouldn't drop him to pick up K Rogers, and I certainly wouldn't be concerned over lge integrity because of K Rogers hitting the waiver wire.

Obviously there are always borderline calls, and G or T have the tough job of making them, but I think you make an excellent point Herb and the benefit of the doubt should probably always go to the participant so long as they have a credible answer - and I think you clearly do.

[ July 13, 2005, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:43 pm

Yeah, I wouldn't have even spent the $26 on him in the first place and I wouldn't take him out of the pool now. Good work on picking up the quick stats he provided and dropping him at the perfect time.

There is no reason why such a typically mediocre pitcher shouldn't be allowed in the free agent pool.

Balticsquids · Post by **Balticsquids** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:47 am

I have no problem with him being cut, but i do have a problem with the NFBC taking him off the market .......

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:23 am

Originally posted by Balticsquids:

I have no problem with him being cut, but i do have a problem with the NFBC taking him off the market ....... I agree as well.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:52 am

Originally posted by :

We also were hoping that this minor transaction might force another team to spend lots of their free agent money going after a has been with misleading stats. As for the childish move on the part of the NFBC of removing this pitcher from the free agent pool, it messes with the minor strategy of ours to hope a team might overspend on Rogers even though in our opinion, and I'm sure other owners would agree, Rogers wouldn't even have been the best free agent pitcher available. Remember, he wasn't even drafted in this league and its not like he is a newcomer with unforseen potential. How Insulting. We would never collude with anyone, we're are in 7th currently, have been in the top 5 most of the season, and have never have finished below 3rd in any major fantasy league in our 15 years of co-owning teams together. We are highly insulted by the accusations bestowed upon us by this league.

Feeling like a cameraman in the face of the gambler,

Herb Goebel Herb, your explanation is solid and we certainly allow you the right to cut Rogers. We are not trying to insult you at all by removing Rogers from the free agent pool and we trust you know your team better than us, which is why we've allowed this move. In my mind, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Right now Rogers is still a quality pitcher who isn't available in any other league and it's not fair to ALL 300 competitors who don't have a shot to pick up an All-Star player at this point in the season. This isn't about collusion, it's about making the contest fair for all 300 players.

As I said, right now I'd rather be safe than sorry. It's possible that we will allow Rogers back into this league's free agent pool down the road and we will certainly contact every owner in this league if we do that well in advance, but right now I don't want an All-Star free agent being available in one league and not the 14 other leagues.

You may think that's a childish move on my part. I feel it's a responsible move. Maybe I'm wrong and I'll admit that if needed. I chose to side on the area of caution with Bonds earlier this year and I'll side with caution here, too. But to have that free agent available with the strategy that one of your league mates will spend lots of FAAB isn't in the best interests of the overall contest, so for now I'll stick with my decision and still let the best team win the $100,000.

Good luck the rest of the way as it looks like a tough fight to the finish in your league.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:49 am

The reasoning is fine, but I find it insulting that he calls the decision 'childish'. NFBC management is trying hard to ensure a fair contest and has to make judgement calls that we may or may not agree with, but calling them childish is ridiculous

Just my 2 cents

Spy

hughes · Post by **hughes** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:53 pm

I don't personally think there are between 135 (min pitchers rostered assuming no bench spots used) and 180 (assuming 3 bench spots for pitchers per team) bets for better second half performance than Rogers -- and by that logic I think he shouldn't have been cut -- but taking the history of second half declines, recent weak performance, and strong likelihood he'll be available for no more than 10 starts in second half, it's hard to see how it's far enough over the line to warrant commissioner intervention. Rogers isn't a Bonds-level performer, setting aside their apparent disregard for the media and human beings generally. (Although by all accounts this was aberrant, out of true character behavior by Rogers.) I may also be persuaded by the well-stated grounds typed by the owners above. It's clear they know what they're doing.

One thing I've learned in my first year of this is that different rules apply here than in traditional leagues. I went into the season with what looked like a stacked offense and cruised in the top 3 or 5 overall for the first 6 weeks, until overwhelming and debilitating injuries and underperformance (do Patterson's AAA stats count?) knocked my team well down, now out of the top 50 overall, and also out of top place in my league. I've got massive era, whip, and saves leagues in the individual league, which is now my only focus with all hopes at the hundred grand dashed, with a disastrous offense. I'm now benching fulltime closers Jones and Mesa. There will come a time, shortly, when I will tire of keeping guys who I will never use again (KRod and Cordero should be able to hold a 20 save league on their own), and will cut Jones and Mesa, regardless of whether they've saved games every day for the two weeks leading up to the cut, in order to take shots at anyone likely to help the depleted lineup. It is an obvious smart move for my team, but query what in light of the Rogers cut precedent will be done when guys like this go out there. I could see similar situations with guys like Podsednik or Crawford, where teams get big leads and can no longer benefit in their individual leagues from the points. If that's the case, and you're not in the running for the overall, the smart move is to cut the player. In most cases, it matters not that someone else in your league will get that player, the net is as likely to help (i.e., a team will pick him up on faab that will pass your main competitors) as it will hurt.

Rogers should be made available in that individual league. Logically, it can't be both that it arguably makes sense for a team to cut players with value in a vacuum, and that it is unfair to allow the player out in the faab bidding. This situation is a result of the no-trade rule, which is inarguably necessary for the integrity of the contest, but leads to what some might consider absurd results.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:31 pm

There is a much higher standard in this format and that is the fact that SOMEONE is going to get paid $100,000 for doing well at fantasy baseball. The contest has 2 duties - to make sure that person doesn't win because of a quirk AND to allow you to make the moves each owner needs to try to put themselves in a position to win. If one has to give, it's not the $100k prize and that is exactly how it should be.

The notion that dumping good players to dillute FAAB is a 'sound strategy' is ridiculous. There are 15 owners in each league. It's doubtful that you'll ever see one guy with $800 FAAB and the rest of the league with $30 left, so there really is no factual benefit from having one of the 7 owners with $400 or more use up their money.

Look at your own league. Take $300 from the guy with the most money - did it really help you?

Fact is that $100k prize has to be maintained with the highest possible integrity and all other decisions are secondary to it. The compromise is to let you drop someone if you want, but not let someone else unfairly benefit from that move.

I'm not sure Kenny fits in that category - we'll know for sure in October. The notion that he's going to serve a 20 game suspension is pretty naive, too

Dave

hughes · Post by **hughes** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 2:02 pm

Looking at the string, I think the dilution of the faab pool was more an afterthought argument. I think the real point was they didn't think Rogers was going to be worth much in the second half. They may or may not be right. I think Rogers should be allowed to be dropped, but can't fault the guys running it to do what they think is necessary to protect the integrity of this thing, and can't say it's clearly a wrong decision.

Re the length of Roger's suspension, not terribly relevant, but that's not getting cut by much, no less than 15 games. He's also going to write a big check to settle the cameraman's lawsuit.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:39 am

There is just to much room for interpretation with these kind of issues. We really need to make this a black and white issue (ie no gray area).

Either form a FAAB Committee of one manager representing every league and have them also form a No Drop List, which could be updated weekly or bi-weekly. If not a Committee, then Greg and Tom have the duty.

However, I am at odds on whether that No Drop List should really mean a manager can't drop that player or that that player can not be placed back into the FAAB pool until the Committee has taken his name off the list. I guess I would lean towards the latter considering the closer example mentioned previosuly in this thread.

[ July 15, 2005, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:06 am

It's possible that we are over-reacting on the Rogers cut as he isn't as dominant as Bonds could have been had he returned before the All-Star break. My initial reaction when I saw the Rogers cut was to allow the move and remove him from that league's free agent pool for the time being. All points being considered, again I chose the side of caution on this one.

He will not be put back into the free agent pool in this league for this week as I wanted time to consider this move. Again, the owner was allowed to make the cut he wanted and his team is the way he wanted it for this week. If I allow Rogers into the free agent pool after that, I will contact each owner individually to let them know he has been released to the free agent pool.

There's nothing wrong with taking extra time to make smart decisions. I will do the same thing with each cut going forward, but everyone should know that they are free to cut any player they want and to manage their teams as they see fit. Keeping certain players out of any league's free agent pool is the one tool I have to make sure the integrity of the $100,000 grand prize remains intact.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:21 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

There is just to much room for interpretation with these kind of issues. We really need to make this a black and white issue (ie no gray area).

Either form a FAAB Committee of one manager representing every league and have them also form a No Drop List, which could be updated weekly or bi-weekly. If not a Committee, then Greg and Tom have the duty.

However, I am at odds on whether that No Drop List should really mean a manager can't drop that player or that that player can not be placed back into the FAAB pool until the Committee has taken his name off the list. I guess I would lean towards the latter considering the closer example mentioned previosuly in this thread. I couldn't disagree more. There are close calls in everything. I would rather have someone trustworthy make a judgement call, even if I disagree with it, than have a one-size fits-all rule.

[ July 15, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:18 am

KJ

That comment makes no sense. How would a decision regarding someone like Rogers differ from one league to the other? So what, different circumstances next week may allow Rogers to be dropped in another league? How fair would that be? So interpretation of the situation in question should have moving goal posts? That's ridiculous!

Decisions need to be consistent based on cold hard facts that can't change - they are called rules. Most rules don't give room for interpretation.

So why not implement a rule(s) that doesn't discriminate or allow room for interpretation. A No Drop List does just that. And whether or not that means the team literally can't drop the player or that the player can be dropped but not reinserted into the FAAB pool is secondary to the importance that the rule(s) is consistent across the competition and leaves little or no room for interpretation.

[ July 15, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:11 am

Since this is an open forum, I will add my two cents.

Having had the pleasure of being in the same league with Herb for both years I want to say that anyone second guessing him and his decisions is all wet. Herb comes to the draft prepared, knows baseball, knows fantasy baseball, and is an active, intelligent owner. I think he has proven that with his "defense" earlier in this string, which he was certainly not obligated to give.

Greg and Tom, I do not feel you are second guessing Herb. His strategy just ran counter to what you felt at the time was in the best interest of the NFBC. I trust you guys like I trust Herb. My personal opinion, however, is that Rogers in know way the superstar that needs to be "protected" from dumping. He is at best an old, average pitcher (on a hot streak early, I recongize) in a terrible park for pitchers.

As a member of Chicago League #2, I do not mind him being in the pool. I will not spend my dollars on him. I would much rather save my money for another chance at Matt Herges.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:13 am

Originally posted by nydownunder:

KJ

That comment makes no sense. How would a decision regarding someone like Rogers differ from one league to the other? So what, different circumstances next week may allow Rogers to be dropped in another league? How fair would that be? So interpretation of the situation in question should have moving goal posts? That's ridiculous!

You are misinterpreting my comment. Its not that he could be dropped in one lge, but not another, it is a matter of one player versus another, ie, Bonds vs Rogers.

Decisions need to be consistent based on cold hard facts that can't change - they are called rules. Most rules don't give room for interpretation.

So why not implement a rule(s) that doesn't discriminate or allow room for interpretation. A No Drop List does just that. And whether or not that means the team literally can't drop the player or that the player can be dropped but not reinserted into the FAAB pool is secondary to the importance that the rule(s) is consistent across the competition and leaves little or no room for interpretation.

My concern with having an ordained list is: (1) the fluency with which information changes, and (2) the time required to maintain such a list. Do you think Greg & Tom really want to update a list everyday based on injury and performance info. My guess is no, and I wouldn't want them to have to. I would rather they respond when required with all of the currently available information. CBS has no-drop lists, and when a guy goes down for the year it could them days or weeks to change their list, and they're got a lot more employees running fantasy games than does Krause.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:34 am

I'm not sure No Drop lists are the key either as those are just as subjective to interpretation each week as what I'm doing now. The difference right now is you are allowed to cut ANYONE you want if it helps your team. I just reserve the right to keep those players out of each league's free agent pool if it hurts the integrity of the overall contest.

I don't see Rogers as being the dominant star who will change the course of the season in this league, but I certainly wanted time to think this through. I'm going to sleep on this some more, but could put him back into this league next week. Bonds was a player I didn't want in the free agent pool in May, but now with the latest news about him possibly missing until mid-August and even the entire season my opinion of him has changed. But I don't mind deciding on the side of caution in either case.

All lists and decisions are subjective. I'll take the criticism from those who disagree with my decisions as long as this remains a fair contest when all is said and done.