the lone star

Members
  • Content count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About the lone star

  • Rank
    Huddler
  1. Forced Acceleration Of Dues Payment To Process A Trade?

    I agree. Thanks for the reply.
  2. Is It Fair To Implement This Rule Immediately?

    Unfortunately, all of this is real.
  3. touching QB = roughing

    They're making it too easy for offenses now. Might as well eliminate kickoffs and start them at the 50 with the way they are going, lol.
  4. Pretty much. How do you resolve this situation?
  5. Is It Fair To Implement This Rule Immediately?

    Cool. Gluck to the Seahawks tonight.
  6. I should have provided more context. Basically, there's a removal procedure that is in the rules/bylaws, but nobody was really aware of it until now. The situation never came up, so this is the first time that the commish and the league members have examined it. Rule says that it should be a league vote, but Commish thinks it is his sole right.
  7. So an owner in my league made a trade for a valuable player, and I didn't like how uneven the deal was, so I voiced my concern to the Commish. The Commish told me that the deal wasn't as bad as I think because the owner that received the star player was forced to pay dues quicker than everyone else in order to get a trade processed. This is a league with a substantial fee for dues, so we split them into 2 payments. Half before the season starts, and half again after week 8. Do you think the Commish should be able to violate this accepted standard/code and demand owners to pay up earlier if they want their trades to go through? Is it fair?
  8. In one of my dynasty leagues, we have been able to place players on IR and keep them there, even if the player returns from injury. We've done this for a few years now, and there have been no formal rule changes. Furthermore, a new rule that was disclose told us that we could activate a player returning from injury "if we want." However, this is not what the commissioner intended. He actually wanted all players returning from injury to be automatically activated and promoted to the active roster. He says that this rule was something he and the co-commish discussed, but never disclosed to the group, or disclosed incorrectly. He's saying that he will use his power as commish to unilaterally activate such players, and that if a team has to cut someone from the roster to make such a change, then he will either force them to cut someone, or cut the player that needs to be activated. What do you think of this? Is it fair for the commish to implement this rule immediately, or should have have to wait since he and the co-commish kinda messed up on how it was disclosed. Again, some players have already been placed on IR due to injuries that have occurred during the off-season and regular season. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.
  9. Should The Commish Be Able To Unilaterally Remove Owners, If It's Against The Bylaws?
  10. Is This Speaking On Someone's Behalf?

    Is there a possible way to inform the commish about the other people without speaking for them? Well, that's assuming that I did speak for them here.
  11. Is This Speaking On Someone's Behalf?

    I like that procedure. I'll advocate for it going forward.
  12. Lev Bell - Something is brewing in Burgh

    I should have picked up Conner in redraft when I had the chance. Was too busy with school though. Oh well.
  13. Which forums did I get booted from?
  14. Lock Team Down Or No?

    So let's say we're like 9-10 weeks into the fantasy season, and Owner A has been able to make trades all season long. During Week 1 he told his opponent that he wants to go all-in this year because it is likely his last year in the league. The opponent thinks Owner A also told him this during the off-season, but isn't 100% sure. However, Owner A has now been eliminated from the playoffs and it does seem like he will not be coming back to the league next year. Sure, he might come back next season (the previous season he said the same thing, yet still returned), but odds are he won't. This is a dynasty league where, obviously, you can trade draft picks from future years to acquire players. Owner A has made these kinds of trades with the Commish and other owners all year, even after Week 1 when he told his opponent that he was leaving. There is no trade deadline and teams eliminated from the playoffs are not locked from making roster transactions. In fact, trades have been processed to teams in the championship right before kickoff for Week 16. So do you still allow Owner A to make trades, or do you shut him down completely? Assume that the league does not vote on trades, but that the trades he will make will be for fair-market-value (as determined by many previous deals made in the league). Also, keep in mind that somebody else will have to inherit his team, but the new owner has not been found just yet. However, also be sure to consider that Owner A has paid full dues for the league this season and that the team is still 100% his at the moment.