|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jul 3, 2016 20:10:44 GMT -5
I guess I'll put this out to the league for input/feedback. Both Henry and Brent submitted claims for the same player. Henry's came in at 7:28pm EST June 30 (which was 12:28am UK time July 1). Minnesota July Minors Claim Inbox Henry Leventis <henry.leventis@gmail.com> Jun 30 (3 days ago) to me 24 minutes into July in the UK (to be considered effectively after midnight Eastern), the Minnesota Rockies claim Josh Ockimey, 1B, red sox
Then Brent's claim came in at 12:01am EST July 1 July 2016 prospect add Inbox Brent Philmon <brent.philmon@live.com> Jul 1 (2 days ago) to me Atlanta Indians would like to add Josh Ockimey 1B BOS for July.
Who gets him?
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Jul 3, 2016 21:02:11 GMT -5
I thought we were going by EDT. I would say Brent. If Brent doesn't get Ockimey, I might start going by whatever time zome Japan is in.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Jul 3, 2016 21:53:52 GMT -5
Yeah Brent 100%
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 4, 2016 2:13:32 GMT -5
Look guys, I could have set up an automated email to be sent at exactly at that time. It shouldn't come to that.
And I shouldn't have to get up at 5am to send an email. Having it a ET as standard puts me at a massive disadvantage because I'm not going to get up at 5 am for fastest finger first. Frankly, my wife would divorce me.
Obviously Brent and I are both 'just as good' at spotting Ockimey. I'd had it in my calendar for 3 weeks to make a claim for him, as I'm sure Brent was similarly keen. It shouldn't be a question of seconds or getting up at wee hours to determine which of us gets him.
In a sensible and ideal world we just say any bids in the first 12 hours of the month are all considered equal and the winner is chosen randomly from them. Otherwise if it's just a question of being super keen and on the internet at exactly the right time, frankly, that's just lame....
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 4, 2016 4:34:41 GMT -5
And for the record, in my email, I said "to be considered after midnight eastern", to say that I was putting in an early bid which would only become effective at midnight your time. To this extent, another fair system would be for it to be standard practice for people to line up their "fastest finger first" bids before midnight, and any bids for the same player which were put in advance would then be considered in one go, with one randomly chosen.
In this case, obviously I'd be happy for it to be a coinflip between us (we hadn't set up this system). But for the future, this seems fair, as obviously (as Paul says) it's crazy to base it on local timezones for each person are as we'd all move to New Zealand, but equally it's a bit crap for everyone to have to race for one second past the hour. And particularly for me because that hour in question is 5 AM instead of midnight.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Jul 6, 2016 14:17:25 GMT -5
I would argue that if you felt the rule was unfair that should have been addressed beforehand. I'd say changing the rules going forward is fine and up to a vote or commish decision, but what happened in the past should follow the rules that were in place at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 7, 2016 1:43:34 GMT -5
Given we are becoming penickity here, nothing regarding ET is actually laid down in the rules. And even if ET is assumed there is nothing to say that one can't submit a bid before midnight ET, saying it becomes effective at midnight. I didn't bring up the issue because I didn't think there was one, and nothing in the rules indicated I was doing anything improper.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Jul 7, 2016 8:42:23 GMT -5
Given we are becoming penickity here, nothing regarding ET is actually laid down in the rules. I don't think that's a road we want to go down here. Certain things are assumed and anywhere that a date says a timezone, it's eastern.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 7, 2016 10:48:50 GMT -5
OK but what's the problem with me emailing a few hours before saying 'this bid will be effective at midnight ET'?
Which is what I did. In any commonsense world this is reasonable- and in FA bidding etc, we arrange in advance for others to bid on ones behalf.
I wasn't going to stay up until 5am to make a bid. Come on- seriously?!! I emailed saying 'please consider this effective after midnight ET' which doesn't appear to be against the rules.
As I say I'm happy for this to be a coin flip, but I'm not standing for Brent just getting him as default.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Jul 7, 2016 11:11:02 GMT -5
Well the question is why not bring this up beforehand then? Everyone else followed the rules and if they missed a guy oh well. I might have taken Ockimey too but I knew I would not be able to bid July 1st midnight because it was canada day. Maybe I would have put something in advance too.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 7, 2016 11:57:55 GMT -5
I'd never before thought it would be an issue. I don't normally rush out to get minors picks. This time I'd been itching for weeks to get Ockimey, and I wasn't able to stay up till 5- seriously what's my alternative? Plus we do stuff like this in free agency.
Anyway, if I had asked beforehand it would have bought extra attention that there was an interesting pickup.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jul 7, 2016 12:37:36 GMT -5
I don't know what to do about this guys. I guess the issue is bigger than my Sox farmhand Ockimey who I hope is as good as Henry and Brent both think.
So have we stumbled across something else that's not clearly outlined in the rules, like how we run the annual Minors Draft and its 12 rounds?
In general, for 4 years in all my Diamond Duos leagues, I do not even look at or consider email claims for certain months if the email is not received during that month (my time, Eastern in the US). I've had previous times had to ask owners to resend a minors claim that was sent in hours or days before a new month hits. Same thing happens with FA claims that are sent in after 11:59pm EST on Friday nights which is out weekly deadline. I have to let owners know their claim or FA offer won't be considered until the next week since the EST deadline was missed, even if I haven't posted the weekly signings and claims yet.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jul 7, 2016 12:38:55 GMT -5
Guess the Constitution has to be gone over with a fine toothed comb and we have several items to add into the rules or after as Addendums. I just don't have time right now with work and family issues to look at it until probably later in July.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Jul 7, 2016 13:46:48 GMT -5
Regardless of whether it's "in the rulebook or not," we have an established precedence that has been followed since the inception of this league, and to further expound, it sounds like it's been followed in the several years of Diamond Duos history. The bottom line is I'm not sure why it would not continue to be followed. If changes want to be made in the future, then so be it, but until then we should go business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 7, 2016 14:11:12 GMT -5
What 'established precedence'? It's never once been shown to me and it's not in the rules. How was I supposed to know submitting a bid with the clear statement 'to be considered after midnight' wasn't allowed? My closest comparable experience is of FA where we are laid back about this stuff.
My intent was clear for goodness sakes. I submitted a bid with clear, stated intentions. Excluding me from a coin toss would be just petty, frankly. And not to be self righteous, but I can guarantee if the show was on the other foot, and there was a clear email that was submitted before the deadline with a clear intent, I wouldnt think to push the issue for a second.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Jul 7, 2016 14:46:13 GMT -5
The established precedence is that all owners do not post a prospect add until midnight EST of the first day of the month. If that were not the case, then Scott would be getting random prospect add emails throughout the month. He's not. If we went by your thoughts, then where is the limit - instead of "oh I'm in a different time zone so I can post it ahead of time," who's to say an owner just doesn't send an email in April with prospect adds for the next five months ("I'm sending it now in to be considered after midnight EST on May 1st, June, 1st, July 1st, August 1st, and so on"). That is not the case. Honestly ignorance of the process is not a justification to try to circumvent it, and I don't feel I should be punished for following the established precedent (by succumbing to a "coin flip").
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Jul 7, 2016 15:10:54 GMT -5
I don't think anyone thinks Henry's intentions were to circumvent a rule (or unwritten rule) that would give him an unfair advantage by sending an email prior to July 1 at12am ET. I don't think that what is in or isn't in the league's constitution is the issue here. Just because I live in the pacific time zone doesn't mean I should assume 12am means 12am pacific. It's not necessarily unfair that henry lives in the UK time zone. 5am doesn't sound like an ideal time to put a claim in but 9pm for me isn't ideal either. 12am eastern means 9pm pacific and typically 9pm in my house is quiet wind down time for my wife and I. It's not an ideal time for me to play fastest finger, but I know that the eastern time zone is what all US based fantasy leagues use. I'm sure some people would prefer 9pm over 12am, but for me, 12am would be better for me. It comes down to knowing that everyone cannot be accommodated to what is best for them. In my opinion, the only way to satisfy the issue/league is to stop the blind bidding and have the claim on a Proboards thread. It's still a fastest finger but it cannot fully be satisfying and ideal for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Jul 7, 2016 16:35:54 GMT -5
Actually after consulting my "fantasy guru" that I have on retainer (aka my 5 year old son), I've decided that, in the overall scheme of things, the Ockster is just not that important to me - I'd rather accommodate Henry's pleas rather than put Scott in the precarious position of having to rule on this (and not really want to get into coin flips, rock/paper/scissors, a duel at 20 paces, playing Battleship, or whatever other mechanism needed to settle this issue), so let's just let Henry have Ockimey. Hopefully, what we gain from all this, if nothing else, is "clarity across the board" on the prospect add process.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jul 7, 2016 17:13:49 GMT -5
Brent, After reaching out to both of you guys I really appreciate your concession here. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong decision, but thank you. It does tell us all that we need to bolster the rules/Constitution on this and other areas we're finding as we go through Year #1.
Ockimey will be added to Minnesota Rockies for July. Brent's Atlanta Indians can submit another July claim via email.
SG
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 18:12:02 GMT -5
For what its worth, I hope in the off season we can vote a change to the protocol where it doesn't put much pressure on a timestamp. I love the fake baseball as much as anyone, but I hate the fastest finger concept and staying up to midnight just to try to be the first to get a vote submitted. Not to belittle anyone's efforts or opinions, but there has been 15 weekly periods for 15 owners to bid on a minor add and there has only been one hiccup. Gauging from discussions with many here, everyone is raising a family or has many other pursuits pulling away from the hobby of fantasy baseball. So eliminating the fastest finger concept would allow everyone to fulfill all the important duties while still getting a crack at their favorite player then have been reading up on while sitting on the can. I have seen other proboards where there is an account listed as blind bid or FA bid and only the admins have access. Maybe we could vote in the offseason to allow an account to be created and a worthy co-commish could handle this account while minors were added through a PM (take some admin pressure off of Scott). Instead of monthly maybe each owner could have six claims for the season starting May 1 and when they are gone then they are gone. If an owner wanted to burn them all up in the week after May 1 then so be it and the more discerning owners could just make a claim when they see a riser at some point thorughout the season. Only limitation would be one claim per owner per day. In the event of a tie then lowest record gets priority. Probably needs a little tweaking but just spitballing to offer a solution.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jul 8, 2016 3:11:18 GMT -5
I'd really rather it was a coin toss! I agree that it is wrong for me to get him hands down. So I feel a bit conflicted here.
I have one other minors pick up my sleeve, and who knows he may end up better than Ockimey. I don't know whether he's already on Brent's list but I will email him in case he is interested.
I'm basically completely with J on finding a way to get rid of FFF. Daily aggregated bidding sounds like a good plan. I'm happy to help take the pressure off Scott, and would promise I wouldn't peek into the account in question.
|
|