If we let some pick a replacement, then it should just be that they select from players not picked from that franchise. Otherwise it will just be non-competitive. The warning went out before the draft got going, but we can't go back. I vote yes, let them pick a new player.

If allowed, the replacement player must come from the franchise from which the original combined-season player was selected. It's not a perfect solution (not sure there is one), but the disadvantage is you're only able to select from player's who are leftover - which could prove tricky depending on your need and cap space.

Full transparency, I have not voted and will not do so unless a tiebreaker is needed.

I appreciate the understanding that several of you have voiced regarding my situation. This old man truly appreciates the courteous and professional opinions you have provided. For what it's worth to those who have not yet voted, here are the two guys that I would propose adding in place of Teixeira and Johnson. Note that I have selected guys from the same positions (1B for Angels, C for White Sox):

1987 Wally Joiner
2012 A. J. Pierczysnki

I would still end up about $4.5 million below the salary cap but would have 6191 Plate Appearances. So, I don't believe that I'll be challenging for the league championship. But, at least, I think my team would not be an embarrassment.

I voted NO for the following reasons:

1. DD is a HOF player with over 90,000 wins under his belt. If it was a newbie I would have let it pass.
2. DD posted that he would only have 5400+ PA as it stands. That's not the whole story. I went through his roster and built a team with 6070 PA and didn't always choose the highest PA season for each player. So that rubs me wrong.
3. Mr_Cubbie could not have been more clear about the rules before this started.
4. Listen, DD is not in my division or league so I'm not really affected. I'm just a real self responsibility kinda guy and I think the rules should be the rules.

I think the rule was pretty clear from the beginning...and yet I missed it with one guy I picked too-Oscar Gamble-when I realized it in round 23 I had to vastly adjust who I could pick in the last two rounds because Gamble's numbers are greatly different from the combined to the partial...I can live with whatever is voted but many of us are affected in many different ways by any rule changes at this point

There are probably easier and fairer quick fixes for the 1 owner. Instead of allowing a blanket statement allowing complete rule change.

The rules were clearly stated.

There should not be a vote to change them.

The vote doesn't exclude the people who would benefit from the rule change so it's not impartial anyway.

You work with what you have.

Changing the rules, as Rattlers said effects many of us in many different ways.

Our vote was NO and will continue to be no.

I sure would have drafted differently had I know we could either used combined or subbed out players after draft was done. I passed on some players because I knew they were combined seasons and had to go a different route instead. I find it hard to believe you can't change some players seasons around to get your plate BA's as well as Innings pitched, Even use lose some better seasons by getting your ab's and Innings. I made sure on every choice I made that I had different choices of seasons if I wanted to, for example I was going to use pitcher Reuss at 7.18 million then in last round Clemens was available so I used Reuss season $875,000 instead. I made sure I kept almost all my players with different seasons to work with. Sorry but I have in the past made mistakes similar to those and I paid the price. I know it sucks, but...

Red Sox

OF Phil Plantier

Replacement

Jason smith
replaces lance nix
ineligible due to combined season
$200K for $200K
Didn’t bother to check originally because it was just a scrub that won’t play at all.

Abstain

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments. I would like to share my thinking in opening this decision to the group:

1. The situation was presented to me as the team would NOT be competitive as currently drafted/constructed. I am taking DarthDurron at his word for this, as I frankly do not have the time to verify and check all the various combinations that might be available using his roster. With that said, if the team is not competitive then it effects everyone in the league - even more so those in the division in which he resides. It creates an imbalance in competition at the very least, which I think should be avoided if at all possible.
2. If I allow an exception for one person, then that exception needs to be an option for everyone. Again, since it impacts the entire group I feel like everyone should be included in the decision-making process and have a chance to cast their vote. Per my post last night, I am abstaining unless we need a tiebreaker.

I understand and appreciate the strong feelings on both sides. The intent here is NOT to make blanket rule changes. The intent is to find an acceptable resolution to a difficult situation I had hoped to avoid in the first place.

do not change the rule but in this case allow darth to choose 2 players from those franchises to complete his roster and lets move on.
i might point out he is limited by his payroll thus i don’t see him achieving a major advantage.
to me the replacements he mentioned in his previous post (joyner, aj pierenski) are acceptable without requiring the combined season rule be change.

I'm with Ron. Played many leagues with Darth and he is as straight a shooter as they come.

I selected an ineligible player in the Astros round. I took Jim Umbricht who last played in 1963. With commish approval I am selecting P Frank DiPino as replacement