Greg Ambrosius wrote:Feel free to respond to our decision and we welcome all feedback. It isn't a win-win situation for anyone. Hopefully this better explains how we ruled and why we ruled the way we did. Right or wrong, we welcome your feedback.
Ok...
Greg Ambrosius wrote:As many of you know, we do our very best to allow all of you to run your teams as you see fit. We don't have a No Cut List. We handle each situation individually and when needed we will pull out players from the free agent pool to keep the integrity of the league intact. We felt we were doing that yesterday when we immediately pulled out all 7 top free agents. In looking at the rest of his roster, we saw players who were dropped by this one owner who were allowed to be cut in many other 12-team leagues. In fact, look at the NFFC Drops lists we posted yesterday for all of our other NFFC leagues and you will see that we allowed all 13 of these same players to be cut in other leagues.
Did you allow any other single player to drop
all 13?
Greg Ambrosius wrote:So the question is: Should we reverse all of these moves just because he cut these 13 cuttable players along with 7 No Cut players?
Yes, because other owners who cut some small subset of these 13 were acting in the interest of managing their teams and still trying to compete. There's an obvious difference.
Greg Ambrosius wrote:Would that help this league, even though not a single owner in this league bid for ANY of these 20 free agents?
Yes, it would help because (a) we might've bid on them in the next 3 weeks and (b) he flooded the waiver pool with 13 players all at once, some of whom certainly may help other teams both score more points AND win more games. Keep in mind that, just because the 3 teams he faces the rest of the season aren't contending doesn't mean that contending teams might not benefit from these gifts that they likely wouldn't have (at least not all in one week).
Greg Ambrosius wrote:The easy decision would be to make an example of this owner who blew off this season and may have caused damage to this league. We could easily do that by reversing all 20 moves, even though we've allowed these same 13 players to be cut in other NFFC leagues. By doing that we'd be returning these 7 players into the free agent pool:
Mark Sanchez
Jason Snelling
John Kuhn
Kevin Walter
Jason Avant
Jacoby Jones
Rob Housler
And you'd also be returning 13 more players to the pool, as well as removing 13 others from the pool.
Greg Ambrosius wrote:The 13 free agents that we are allowing to remain in this league's FAAB pool are free agents that are available in many other 12-team NFFC leagues.
How many other leagues just had
all 13 of them become available this week? Strong sense is NONE. Even if there are some leagues, how many had them all dropped by the same frustrated owner? You really are comparing apples to oranges.
Greg Ambrosius wrote:And the 7 players he picked up this week were affordable for anyone to have picked them up. This league has 7 less free agents available because of this owner's moves,
And 13
more because of his moves. But I agree that in all likelihood, those 7 players never should've been picked up because anyone dropping the 7 players he did to get them - all at once - is obviously sabotaging the league.
Greg Ambrosius wrote:fortunately his next three h2h matchups aren't against teams battling for the h2h crown. Not that this matters in our decision, but here are the standings in this league:
If it doesn't matter, then why did you bring it up? As I said, the extra free agents available can very likely affect H2H competition for the teams that do/don't pick them up. With 3 8-2 teams and 2 7-3 teams, this league is obviously still quite close - close enough that just one good game from one mediocre of these 13 dropped players could make the difference. Why on earth would you ever want to allow that possibility to occur?
Greg Ambrosius wrote:Our first decision yesterday was to remove the top 7 free agents, per our rules. While this does look like "sabotage" and something we can act on per our rules, the bottom line is that the 13 players we allowed to be cut and remain in the FAAB pool are 13 players that were allowed to be cut in many other NFFC leagues. We can't say for certainty that his pickups are any worse than his cuts.
Look, it's this simple: You've stated many times that you don't wish to make owners' decisions for them on how to manage their teams. Yet something about THIS event compelled you to act. Had an owner dropped 1-3 of these "undroppable" 7 players (or a similar small group of any of the other 13), then I agree with you not getting involved, per your longstanding goal of letting owners manage teams as they see fit. But the fact that you DID get involved shows that you obviously felt this time it was necessary. WHY? (Because it WAS sabotage) Then at that point, why go back on your own rule and use your own personal subjective player evaluations to determine how much of this to undo?
Isn't it cleaner and more objective to just undo the whole dirty mess?
Greg Ambrosius wrote:Yes, there are now 13 different free agents there than if we had reversed all of the moves. But those same 13 players are available in other 12-team NFFC leagues -- including national contests -- and we did not make exceptions to keep any of them out of their FAAB pools.
Greg Ambrosius wrote:This co-owner has only hurt himself.
Sorry, but that's just completely false.