Posted by tecwrg on 9/18/2010 8:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by joshkvt on 9/18/2010 12:17:00 PM (view original):
SiteStaff's post cited losing 36 1-ruin games as a prime reason for allowing boogerlips to return. Had he not traded away a SP who went 20-3 and a middle-of-the-order hitter for a 100+ win team (getting very little in return), perhaps he'd have won 6 of those 36 games? Instead, he dumped contracts to clear enough salary to allow him to make the most-expensive FA signing in the world, while other owners with marginal teams promoted players and signed FA to make sure they hit the wins floor.

If the reason for allowing him back in was because there is an appeals process that allowed one owner back and not the other, they should state that and we could decide that both have to go. Instead, they specifically said they consider such removals case-by-case, which indicates to me that it is boogerlips' whining, not the appeals process, that is the problem. It's going to cost them hundreds of dollars to keep one owner happy. Hope boogerlips spends a lot of money on the site in the future, because I sure won't if tanking rules cannot be enforced.

This is precisely the reason why subjectivity needs to be removed from the equation, and that rules should be enforced strictly in a black/white manner.

A guy misses the win minimums.  He goes up for review.  It's noted that he lost 36 one-run games, and that with a little more "luck" he would have/should have met the minimums.  That's a strong case in favor of keeping him.  But then it's also noted that he held back good prospects in AAA which could have helped him win some of those one-run games and put him over the threshhold.  That's also a strong case for booting him.

Like Mike said, given any particular case, one can sometimes make equally valid arguments either way.  Subjectivity becomes a coin flip.  If I'm part of the review committee, I might make a decision based on whether I like the guy or not, or if he's a pain in the ***.  Or maybe I've had a bad day at work and I'm in a pissy mood, so he's gone.  Or maybe I had a great round of golf, had a couple of cold ones in the clubhouse and came home in a happy mood, so he stays.

You either meet the requirements or you don't.  Shades of gray will bite you in the *** every time.

Some of you are still insisting that a 5 man panel should be enough.   It isn't.    Read the TOS.   Even if the rules are carved in stone and an agreement is signed in blood, WifS reserves the right to overrule them.    When you add subjectivity from a "panel" or "committee", you give WifS a reason to overrule it.  For those saying "Everything isn't in black and white", the win rule can be black and white. 

Posted by nfet on 9/18/2010 10:02:00 AM (view original):
It's not meant to be an enforceable "rule".

Not making the win floor gets your appeal to stay reviewed, not auto-booted.

Player A is an owner with a few seasons under his belt. He put on a tanking clinic and when warned of his possible removal made comments such as
"SO and SO is available, if you don't mind me falling farther under the win floor"  and "If I am booted I will send a ticket". "and I will NOT call up so and so, it will start his arb clock. I am looking to compete in S3"

It would be hard to get a beter example of the kind of thing you want the rule to discourage. 

Player B is a 1st time player in a world that had many many owners with little experience. He is dealt a bad team. He falls behind the learning curve early. He is actively asking questions and seeking help. He makes a few moves to improve his team.

Again, it would be hard to come up with a better example of a guy you would WANT to give the benefit of the doubt.
No one wants to kick out good owners. Plus, remember that he didn't get a free pass. He is allowed to play ONE more season, understanding that if he fails to win 71 games he is out with no chance for appeal.

I guess our only recourse, besides abandoning our team because of one guy, is to ignore booger.

Let him build his team on his own. Strictly through draft and FA.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/19/2010 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Would the situation be different if booger said nothing?   What if he said "I really thought I had enough BL talent to get to 55 wins despite the trades.  Seriously, I lost 36 one run games.  That's just crazy!!!!"?

Posted by joshkvt on 9/19/2010 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/19/2010 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Would the situation be different if booger said nothing?   What if he said "I really thought I had enough BL talent to get to 55 wins despite the trades.  Seriously, I lost 36 one run games.  That's just crazy!!!!"?

Mike, you've said here and elsewhere how important communication is in enforcing a rule. boogerlips was repeatedly reminded (in the league forum and through Trade Chat) that he was on pace to fall short, so if he'd said nothing I don't see how it would have made any difference. In that case, the decision would have to be based on what he said in his appeal combined with his actions during the season. If he'd said "I really thought I had enough BL talent to get to 55 wins despite the trades.  Seriously, I lost 36 one run games.  That's just crazy!!!!"? the decision would have to be partly based on whether it was considered reasonable for an owner in trouble to ignore advice/warnings throughout the season and whether losing 36 1-run games meant he was unlucky or that it would have taken very little to get the team to 55 wins.