That’s a fair question. I think there was some potential ambiguity about what Hamlet could’ve done, since the games were over and the score was known, and he could’ve chosen to start multiple defenses. Whereas Varlos obviously wouldn’t have left Bush in his starting slot, and whatever he does with the slot, so there’s no ambiguity of intention there.
I also think there’s a factor that’s hard to logically justify. Basically, Varlos is asking to have options restored so he can play someone who yet hasn’t played. It doesn’t, currently, decide the result of the game. Whereas retroactively adjusting a roster after the score is known can directly turn a win into a loss. Now - logically, I don’t think these actions are any different, but they’re received differently psychologically by the person being potentially victimized them. And the psychology is a real factor - I wouldn’t want any of these “would be nice if…” moves to be done if it leads to dissatisfaction with the league as a whole.
That said, I was going to make a post on the Hamlet situation and forgot to. I would’ve been okay with fixing Hamlet’s roster with approval of his opponent, which is the same standard I’d be holding this one to.
Maybe we need to hash out a specific rule, perhaps having to do with ambiguity of intent, for these rare situations.
I think Stringer made out in that deal. Graham is having an off year, but he’s still, at worst, the 2nd best dynasty TE and Stringer’s first round pick is going to be bottom 4. Getting out of Buffalo might get Spiller somewhere that he gets more opportunities, but I don’t think he’s ever going to amount to much at this point.
Spiller has incredibly low mileage for a player of his talent level and has been woefully misused in Buffalo. I traded for him for a reason last year but my window is closing so I have to make something happen this year.
RE: retro-starting, yeah, I’m not even asking to do it, exactly – more like gathering opinions. I do think it’s different from Hamlet’s situation in that there’s no theoretical ambiguity in this case, whereas he could have started either of two Defenses (even if one was a lot more likely). Maybe “theoretical ambiguity” is sort of a distinction without a difference and the situations are the same, I don’t know.
OTOH, while I do want to know what Ellis thinks, I’m a little hesitant to put it all on one’s opponent, because it kinda puts that guy on the spot. So, you know, Ellis should just say the word if he’s somewhat uncomfortable with the idea.
The ambiguity of intent is a good point so I am torn. We all play together every year and shit happens so I have no problem being accommodating for a situation like this. However, I would like some kind of precedent/guideline established that we can follow. Ellis isn’t the only one with a horse in this race (I likely play whoever comes out of that division) so I’m not crazy about the opponent being the only person who decides if it is allowed. And regardless, I don’t want to make decisions based on how it affects me or doesn’t, I want to make decisions based on fairness.
So, propose the Graham trade to one another and I’ll push it through. It just looks neater if it reads as a trade on Yahoo instead of a Commissioner Edit. No rush, Graham plays Sunday.
After my team’s woeful performance yesterday, I figure this is not my year. So I’m looking to trade before the deadline. Almost anyone on my team up for grabs and I’m looking for young guys with high upside and early round draft picks. Come one, come all, everything must go on this blackest of Black Fridays!
I’m not really cool with the Reggie Bush thing. If it’s 1:05 and you need to move him out of the lineup because you couldn’t get network service before 1, that’s one thing. This seems more like taking advantage of the situation (though I don’t doubt you have good intentions, V.)
ETA: If I wasn’t eliminated I’d be looking to buy, Justin… but I am.
I’ll be around a computer for another hour for sure. After that, I may not see any message before the trade deadline, so those looking to BUY BUY BUY keep that in mind.
As for the Reggie Bush thing, I’m OK with it. Thursday games are a bitch and if a guy is held out due to injury, that’s something you probably would have caught if he played on Sunday.
When was he declared inactive? If it was Thursday morning, RNATB has a point. If it was the night before, though, then I see where VarlosZ is coming from.
It was at 10:03 a.m. Thursday morning, according to Rotoworld. However, I thought the Lions kicked off at 1; it was actually 12:30 p.m. Objection withdrawn.
I’m sensitive to the problems with the whole Reggie Bush thing. It’s tough to start making exceptions for avoidable mistakes and then knowing where to draw the line, especially when that line has to be drawn pretty conservatively. I was about to ask Justin just for his opinion, since it probably affects him about as much as Ellis, but I see he said he’s fine with it. I’ll sleep on it one more night and probably make the change tomorrow.
By the way, our official trade deadline was tonight on Yahoo, but (assuming no objection) I think we can extend that through Saturday, and I can manually execute any trades. Sunday morning, too, but anything that close to game time had better be clearly non-controversial.
I have an officially successful season now, with my last game being meaningful. I need VarlosZ (pull it together, man!) to beat Justin and then I have to somehow squeeze a win over furt and I win the division.