|
|
Post by OLD rookies on Oct 4, 2017 3:38:40 GMT
I’d like to propose an appeal regarding Russell Westbrook’s situation couple days ago. Apparently, it was within the timeline that regulation stated (24hrs) when I’ve matched the offersheet that another team proposed to Westbrook. Commisioner and all teams may check together the time stamp.
as per my clock..
Sep 30th 6:20pm - Ronto Raiders put a bid on Russell Westbrook
Oct 2nd 6:20pm - I’ve matched the offersheet
I know the commish already decided on the player’s ownership, and I respect his actions, but with this new evidence appears (yesterday we couldn’t determined the time stamp),I want to know his (and all teams) opinions on this matter. As shown in other threads, the timeline hasn’t passed yet, and I believe Commish probably should overrule his previous decision, or at least give us some advice on this. I’ve tried to reach out the commish via pm, but no responses yet. Please clarify this situation.
Sorry for bothering y’all with me keep bragging, but at least, let’s all take a minute or two to look on this situation.
Thank you...
|
|
|
|
Post by thundercats on Oct 4, 2017 7:25:18 GMT
I’d like to propose an appeal regarding Russell Westbrook’s situation couple days ago. Apparently, it was within the timeline that regulation stated (24hrs) when I’ve matched the offersheet that another team proposed to Westbrook. Commisioner and all teams may check together the time stamp. as per my clock.. Sep 30th 6:20pm - Ronto Raiders put a bid on Russell Westbrook Oct 2nd 6:20pm - I’ve matched the offersheet I know the commish already decided on the player’s ownership, and I respect his actions, but with this new evidence appears (yesterday we couldn’t determined the time stamp),I want to know his (and all teams) opinions on this matter. As shown in other threads, the timeline hasn’t passed yet, and I believe Commish probably should overrule his previous decision, or at least give us some advice on this. I’ve tried to reach out the commish via pm, but no responses yet. Please clarify this situation. Sorry for bothering y’all with me keep bragging, but at least, let’s all take a minute or two to look on this situation. Thank you... Hi mate, not to be funny. But if the final bid was made on the 30th and you have 24 hours to match it. Then you would have had to matched the offer by the 1st @6:20pm. In your statement you have mentioned the 2nd. I'm no, mathematical genius but that is 48 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by OLD rookies on Oct 4, 2017 7:51:42 GMT
Actually, there’s another day pending for a RFA’s previous owner to match an offersheet to his player. That is the privilege that a RFA’s owner has.
Yes, I’m aware Ronto’s bid was Saturday. Nobody (other managers) outbidded his bid for the next 24hrs, which was until Sunday, oct 1st. Therefore, Ronto had a right to offer the player a contract, and he did offer the player a 4 year contract. But that contract can be matched by previous owner, who has a full 24hours to claim his RFA back.
My clock to match the offer started at 6:21pm on Sunday until 6:20pm on the next day (Oct 2nd). If I’ve missed even for a minute to match the offersheet, then the RFA would be Ronto’s officially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Javy Dawg on Oct 4, 2017 8:03:43 GMT
This is the timeline that I have been working from...
RR placed bid on Westbrooke at 8:20PM 30/9/17
RR won auction for Westbrooke at 8:20PM 1/10/17
By 8:20PM on 2/10/17 Rookies had not matched offer.
However on review during the auction for Westbrooke, clocks (at least in my timezone) were moved forwarded for the start of daylight savings time.
So from my perspective the auction for RW ran from 8:20PM 30/9/17 to 8:20PM 1/10/17; however due to the DST change this was only 23 Hours.
Rookies was then given 24 hours to ‘match’ the offer...
At 9:20PM Rookies posted....
Which at the time I did not interpreted as intent to match.
This was followed by another post by Rookies at 9:24PM, indicating that Rookies had NOT matched the deal.
On review, the Rookies post at 9:20 (47 Hours, 59 Minutes and 26 Seconds after the initial bid) could be considered a valid matching of the RW offer sheet.
However it could also be argued that from Rookies follow up post, (48 Hours, 3 Minutes after the initial bid) he had not matched the offer.
The intent of the rule to allow a manager 24 hours to complete a certain action is to ensure that managers from all over the world can participate equally without the need to be constantly online or online at inconvenient times. Rookies attempt at exploiting this to gain some advantage may not be against the rules; it is however in my opinion against the spirit of the rules.
It was evident some 20 hours earlier that Rookies was attempting to ‘wait out’ RR to try and force a salary cap breach. Despite the fact it had been clearly established that there was no breach in signing RW. The fact that RR did exceed the cap later on by signing other players is in this case irrelevant.
It was the ruling at the time that Rookies had missed his opportunity to match the RW offer, and RW was awarded to RR. Following on from this decision there have been several other transactions made that may have been influenced by my decision to award RW to RR.
To undo the decision now would I believe require a rollback of all transaction following my decision to award RW to RR and I do not believe there is sufficient grounds on which to do this.
This entire situation could have been easily avoid had Rookies heeded the advice given to him shortly after the RW auction had finished the RR had NOT violated the salary cap and matched the offer.
I have now spent the best part of 3 days dealing with this issue, time that could have been better spend on more productive task, like updating the salary sheet, or actually playing fantasy bball and working the trade market, and hope that we can now put the issue to rest and all move on to what will hopefully be a fun and exciting year.
|
|
|
|
Post by OLD rookies on Oct 4, 2017 9:47:27 GMT
Appreciate the effort you’re doing here, commish...it’s not an easy task being a commisioner of a fantasy league. I won’t force you to undo your actions. If Westbrook has to play for Ronto Raiders, that’s fine. I believe I can still manage to compete even without Westbrook.
What I’m doing here is trying to clear the things up. There are some grey areas in the rulebook that need to be cleared up. For example, the offersheet for a RFA that needs to be detailed so it can be put on the salary sheet before a team claims a RFA officially. That’s what I was trying to do.
In my defense, when I posted at 6:20pm (commish clock at 9:20pm), I’ve asked to clear this Westbrook’s contract situation first, since I need to be clear where did RW’s contract stand by that time. I’ve also reached out the commish to update the salary sheet, so I could review and plan what kind of moves I’d make by that time, using the salary sheet as a basis. Later then, I’ve said that if by the timeline passed, and the contract situation hadn’t clear yet, I’ll match the offer. That was my statement, which should be counted as an action to match the offer.
I know my moves were not pretty for some, but I was planning for team’s long term situation. And what I’m asking here is us to stand by our league’s regulation, even it seemed ugly in the surface. There might some holes that we can use as an advantage to manage our salary management.
Thanks to our Commisioner to dive in so deep dealing with this issue. Your doing a good job here. Always be fair and thorough as you’ve been, since you’ll be the judge for all actions in our league.
I’ll move on from this issue as well. Let’s have fun this year.
|
|
