poor sports

[Sandman62]

... is cutting 5 top players too many (yes), 7, 10, a whole team?

Yes, I think it's pretty clear "a whole team" is too many, don't you? Without even having to establish a rule that picks a lesser number, does ANYONE think cutting a whole team isn't too many???

There was no winning answer for this ownership move.

Seeing no one else bid on the players he acquired, why isn't the winning answer to just put his whole team back? I understand your argument if waivers had been affected; but they weren't (no competing bids).

[Money]

i say for next season since there is a thread for rules. is to have a rule that if this is done again a player forfits ALL HIS TEAMS IN ALL LEAGUES . seems like a way to make sure this NEVER happens again . what if one of his last 3 games were against the top teams . would a slap on the wrist be enough .i was very pissed when i looked at the faab pick ups this morning and still haven't let it go .all leagues are important to everyone in them if their $150 sat or main event they should all be treated as such .not that well it's only a $150 sat .we are all customers most good and have class and play as such .some penalty should be brought down .

Nobody is saying "Oh good, it's just a $150 Satellite League." We're saying the moves were done legally and we removed the top free agents to avoid the total points race by being affected anymore than possible. He can't affect the h2h winner in this league, although, yes the free agents being taken by this team could hurt others when they look for pickups in Weeks 12 and 13.

I sure hope nobody tries this again. If we put in our rules every possible scenario -- I mean, is cutting 5 top players too many (yes), 7, 10, a whole team? -- our rules would be gigantic. Does any other league make such a distinction in their rules?? No, because nobody has ever dealt with this again. Should we have No Cut Lists? Again, would that have prevented him from cutting players 8-20? No. So we would have allowed some cuts, but not others?

I'm not sure there is a safeguard for anyone who cuts all 20 players, but we're watching all moves like we always do and then we act immediately. Again, I don't expect EVERYONE to say we acted perfectly, but no matter what we did the league owners were going to be affected and we would have been criticized either way. There was no winning answer for this ownership move. Heck, it was even worse than what the Florida Marlins did.

You're in a tough spot here Greg. I don't think anyone is critical of how you handled the situation. It seems many are asking for repercussions against the player. After viewing his comments posted from the league message board (assuming there accurate) I'd say there is no remorse or sense of wrong doing against fellow league players, only simple arrogance. I'd whack the guy but this is not my business, it's yours.

It's a shame you have to address stuff like this.

[got heeem]

nice sandman this is the guy that they are saying is A GOOD CUSTUMER .please that almost made me sick . that and the hangover from bowling night last night ha ha .what a chump in 2 of my other leagues a guy cut RIVERS AND ANOTHER CUT FLACCO i said nothing . it was 1 guy each not 15 good ones this guy has no clue . cutting players was the most fun he has had .i can't win this league but i play the top 2 the last 2 weeks can't wait .pull the upset this is how most everyone else plays .

[Sandman62]

With all due respect Joe, got heeem and I ARE critical of how this was handled. And I'm pretty sure we're the only ones out here who are actually IN this league.

I'm trying hard to maintain composure and be respectful, but I completely disagree that this isn't a slam dunk scenario that calls for resetting his entire team to how it was before waivers ran last night. If he'd dropped 3, 7, 10 players, maybe not. And I could see how Greg and Tom would stand by their precedent of not getting involved. But when it's AN ENTIRE TEAM, I'm baffled at how it's not a whole new level of abuse, requiring a new precedent.

[Shrink Attack]

I'm not in this league, so I'm not getting involved in what should be done. But I will say three things:

1) Greg and Tom have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these decisions. Maybe this issue can be a part of the rules discussion for next year. For now, they act as commissioner of the league and their judgement should be respected.

2) Tom's statements that he "understands some of his reasoning" and that this twirp just wanted to "try something different to try and get enjoyment out of the reminder of the season" is ludicrous. This is an unethical player whose actions were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: To say "Fuck You" to everyone in the league because he's losing. To suggest anything else otherwise is insulting the intelligence of this High Stakes community.

3) We all know that if this were a local league he'd be banned for life. But this isn't a local league. Again, I will respect whatever decision Greg and Tom make here. But I can tell you this: I will never play in a league with Nick DeRuiter. If I see the name Nick DeRuiter anywhere on the Draft list, I will withdraw immediately and refuse to play in a league with him.

[Greg Ambrosius]

... is cutting 5 top players too many (yes), 7, 10, a whole team?

Yes, I think it's pretty clear "a whole team" is too many, don't you? Without even having to establish a rule that picks a lesser number, does ANYONE think cutting a whole team isn't too many???

There was no winning answer for this ownership move.

Seeing no one else bid on the players he acquired, why isn't the winning answer to just put his whole team back? I understand your argument if waivers had been affected; but they weren't (no competing bids).

Sure Mike, cutting your whole team is too many. I agree. As you've said, he's hurt his team and he's justified it by being upset with fantasy football. In a pay league. It makes no sense.

By setting a precedent that we should rescind every waiver pickup we'd be saying that every pickup was wrong. Maybe some of these pickups will outscore his regulars. Nobody knows for sure. As you stated, nobody wanted these free agents and now nobody will get his top players.

[Tom Kessenich]

this is the guy that they are saying is A GOOD CUSTUMER

Mark, please quote me accurately if you're going to quote me. What I said was this person "has been to this point" a good customer. That is correct. At no time in the past has this person even remotely caused a problem nor has he remotely caused a problem in any of his other leagues he's playing with us this year. If you want to say there's a first time for everything you may have a point. But that doesn't make my statement inaccurate.

Shrink, I'm sorry if you think my statements are ludicrous. I stand behind them. I've played in this game long enough to know what it feels like to have a team underachieve despite having quality talent. Does that mean I would do what this person did? No way. But I do understand the sense of frustration that goes along with this type of season. THAT is the point I was trying to make. If you consider that to be ludicrous, so be it.

[Sandman62]

By setting a precedent that we should rescind every waiver pickup we'd be saying that every pickup was wrong. Maybe some of these pickups will outscore his regulars.

IMO, you'd be saying "We're not going to tolerate obvious sabotage and that, whether some of the pickups improved his team or not, he forfeited all rights to managing his team once he obviously committed sabotage against the league and the NFFC in general".

To me, that's a whole lot different than your commendable desire to not manage people's teams for them. When they've obviously completely given up on managing their team, I really don't think you're still obligated to attempt to avoid crossing that line ("managing people's teams").

[kjduke]

As far as how we would handle it in the future should something similar occur again, if you disagree with how we handled it here feel free to post your suggestions. I would like to believe all of you know that we'll obviously consider all suggestions to make our games better. Hopefully after nine years of doing this we've proven that to all of you by now.

Add this to the official rules ...

"If any player attempts to disrupt the integrity of the contest, for example, by dumping valuable players into the free agent pool for clearly inferior players, or intentionally trying to lose weekly matchups, we reserve the right to reverse those moves and ban that player or anyone that we suspect is attempting to enter a contest on his or her behalf from any and all future STATS-sponsored contests at our sole discretion".

No response yet ... so let me ask, any reason not to have this in the rules?

[got heeem]

don't take this the wrong way tom i am glad you steped up and removed any chance of collusion by removing the players . i just went back and read the things he had to say about me on our league board . this cry baby isn't sorry he said he thought it was funny what he did .all i know is i want out of any league that i see his name in next year . nick deruiter his first name kind of rimes with d*** . seems about right .