Who Owns Player X?

[z - El Guapo - retired]

NY Mets GM proposes a Rule change: No one can vulture another team's player just because he forgot or was unable to post him on Fantrax. The mere fact that there is a "paper trail" here on proboards should be enough evidence to guarantee the right of ownership. Let's put an end to GMs poaching other team's properties.

The reason we use Proboards is to identify who owns which player. Let Proboards be the determining factor in a dispute concerning which team owns which player. We use Cot's for determining salaries; we should do as much with player ownership. If we can trace the player in question back to a trade/the draft/ or signing bonus, that should validation enough.

If anyone finds an unowned player on Fantrax or here on Proboards, runs a Search and sees he is owned, that should suffice. Simply notify the correct owner by email or PM, rather than poach the player. Often players do not initially appear on Fantrax and slip into an ownership "crack" and are "forgotten." How long does it take to modify another owner that you saw his player appear on Fantrax as avaiable?

We'd like a league Poll on this matter, rather than simply saying "it's in the rules" or "we do this to force owners responsible for posting their properties on Fantrax."

[z - El Guapo - retired]

Here's a scenario: We drafted a guy in another league, very deep draft. Went to add him on Fantrax, and his name doesn't appear. We now have him on our probaords team page and, of course, he appears in the Search as belonging to us. But as things happen, over the season this deep spec gets lost in the shuffle; we forget to add him on Fantrax. The season move on and other players become "more important."

We don't think we should lose this guy to a poacher. This kind of "stuff" happens all the time. Sometimes because we are in four leagues and very active, we get "lost" or confused about in exactly which league we own a guy -- he falls through the cracks again. That's not always the same scenario, but similar problems occur -- not the least of which is the onset/first signs of dementia. heh

We store our data on proboards (or it stores te data for us) exactly for these kinds of goofy scenarios. We say let's allow the ownership rights take their due course and use Probaords for its intended purposes -- a permanent record of these things (like archiving our previous year rosters, just in case there are any questions later) or notifying an owner during the draft that Player X has already been picked.

Let's be gentlemen rather than vandals about these sorts of things.

[Twins GM (Mike)]

My two Lincoln pennies:

This clear and well-meant amendment notwithstanding, I can envision problems that still would require a commissioner-imposed remedy. During the draft, for instance, I did not select a prospect until I searched him on Fantrax and determined that he was available. If this amendment is adopted, then what would happen, for instance, if I select Player X, unowned on Fantrax, and then ten picks later discover (or am informed) that a paper trail shows Player X owned by Team Y who simply forgot to add him? What if I/we discover this after the draft has concluded? Team Y owns Player X, but now I have lost my draft pick, which is also an asset and therefore my property. You might respond that I ought to have searched Player X on Proboards, and perhaps that's true, but in that case BOTH teams are guilty of neglect, yet only I have lost my property.

Either way, I think the judgment of our excellent commissioner and administrators will continue to be necessary.

[z - Tim]

^^^ thats the main point, you'd be punishing the guy that did nothing wrong.

Twins makes the main point, the rule is mostly about which owner is worth protecting more -- the owner that had a whole year to roster his prospect on fantrax and didnt or the owner that searched fantrax and found a unowned guy. In that sense, its an easy call for the rule as is. Proboards search has gotten to be better (part of the reason for this rule in all leagues is that pro boards search used to be very erratic and unreliable, im not sure if its still 100% but it improved) but people can still misspell names etc on pro boards. It also has some other benefits, saves everyone research time (its much more efficient for one manager to do his job on proboards than the other 29 managers doing research to double check him on proboards). And it also closes a roster limit loophole (if I don't have to pick up my specs on fantrax and proboards is good enough its very easy to go over 60 guys, fantrax is our one way to keep track of that automatically and this rule forces guys to be rostered on fantrax), I don't expect Brad to manually counter everyone's roster on proboards, so twice a year at the draft and at spec bidding this is one way to make sure people aren't loopholing the roster limits. (for guys not on fantrax by the way, you can let fantrax know and they are excellent about adding players to the database, usually within days and even if not just let Brad know, thats not a reason to change the rule, thats sthg he would make an exception for)

I agree if you see some guy on fantrax and know he's owned on proboards tell the guy out of courtesy. But if it comes down to making a decision, I'd always side on the side of the guy making a pick after seeing the dude unowned on fantrax rather than the guy that had a whole year to claim his player.

[z - El Guapo - retired]

We can't even count the times someone drafted a player that was already drafted/owned. He had to re-pick. If it goes on unattended to, past the draft, our position remains the same -- the guy is owned already and should be the property of the Team A, not of the poacher.

[z - Tim]

it's not really fair to call it poaching. the guy is no longer owned. if you cannot pick him up after a season, he is abandoned.  you'd really just be punishing the guy drafting for the previous owner's inattention. I know this bugs you, you complain about it a couple times a year in every league im in with you. but ultimately for the multiple reasons above, especially in protecting against a loophole to our roster limits, it works out to better than the alternative.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

So, all in all I agree w/ Guapo. If a player pops up on ProBoards for whatever reason, and there's a paper trail he has an owner and it should stay that way. Regardless. But, people keep referencing prospects because that's the most likely scenario. Guy forgets to claim a guy he drafted in Low A because during the offseason, teams aren't as active on Fantrax. But what about UFA?

We do 4 weeks of nominating players for UFA. SP/RP/CI+MI/C+OF. This is where it gets tricky. Because essentially, now I'm having to search every. single. unowned ML on Fantrax just to see if they're owned. We're literally nominating 100's of players. To say that's time consuming, would be an understatement. Now, there are some of us that just know, who's owned or who's not. But I'd say the large majority don't. So I'm making my SP list, I want to nominate 30 SP. It's now my responsibility to search every, single, player to make sure that someone is doing their part, and updating their roster.

Side Bar - I've actually never understood the nominating process here, nor do I entirely agree with it. If i'm targeting a group of players, I shouldn't have to police it to the league. It'd be like a real GM saying "Heyyy everyone, I like Player X. Better make sure you bid the price up on him so I can't get my guy." People 100% poach certain owners lists in here, make no mistake. It also forces teams to nominate an abundant number of players just to hide their true targets, creating more "Is this guy owned? Better go back and search" scenarios. Another argument for another day...

Back to my point. The one thing the nomination process does, is send a reminder to the league. Hey, your guy just got nominated. You've got ample time now, to claim him. I don't know what the best method is. But that sure does seem fair.

Btw...and I've done it before. I always tell an owner if there guy is unowned on Fantrax.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

For those that may have missed my point and why it's different.

In the draft, I'm looking at ONE player I want to select. Easy, right?

In UFA, I'm searching 100's of players. I play in multiple leagues, as deep and competitive as this one. But man do I not have time for that shit. Pick up your players before UFA, pretty please.

[z - Tim]

anthony, if you ever want to nominate guys without the whole league knowing its you nominating them, you can always just pm the names to brad (or me or scott) and will post them for you so your name is associated with them.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

You, Brad and Scott were the poachers I was talking about

Just kidding, but good to know.

[z - El Guapo - retired]

Most of the false claims and bids are of obscure players and certainly not a year after they been won in bidding, traded for or drafted. The system is in place for establishing ownership. You only poach a player rather than notify the rightful owner for individual gain. That is strictly a vulture's position, not anything to do with Fantrax or the poor schmeal who forgot to roster his guy. No one tries to inadvertently leave a guy off his Fantrax; it is just something that occasionally happens. And it's easily corrected by a simply PM to the owner. Most omissions are because many of us are in several leagues and occasionally botch up rostering players. It isn't intentional -- unlike poaching, which is underhanded and done for gain.

If some here prefer to vulture a player rather than contact an owner, that says more about that individual than it does about any rule or procedure.

A poll on this subject would work.

[Phillies GM (Ron)]

I'm in five dynasty leagues, all deep leagues, all using Proboards for rostering. Four use Fantrax and one ESPN. Proboards should rule in my opinion. My example is in another league I'm in I've just made a trade that brings in one more player than I'm able to roster for my MLB roster. I have 48 hours to rectify the roster situation by rule.

In the meantime I've claimed an MiLB player that is now on my Proboards roster but I can't put him on my Fantrax roster till I've resolved my MLB roster which has 24 more hours to go.

I don't think Garcia should be eligible for another GM to pick (which he would be here in certain cases) when I'm following the rules as written which leave him exposed to claim until I resolve my roster.

Just my two cents.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

Jan 23, 2019 11:20:23 GMT -5 Phillies GM (Ron) said:

I'm in five dynasty leagues, all deep leagues, all using Proboards for rostering. Four use Fantrax and one ESPN. Proboards should rule in my opinion. My example is in another league I'm in I've just made a trade that brings in one more player than I'm able to roster for my MLB roster. I have 48 hours to rectify the roster situation by rule.

In the meantime I've claimed an MiLB player that is now on my Proboards roster but I can't put him on my Fantrax roster till I've resolved my MLB roster which has 24 more hours to go.

I don't think Garcia should be eligible for another GM to pick (which he would be here in certain cases) when I'm following the rules as written which leave him exposed to claim until I resolve my roster.

Just my two cents.

That's a very specific case, that's probably been broadcast across the league and I doubt the commish would vote against your stance. But like many have said, there are reasons why ProBoards should be the definitive list. When the season starts though, people need to pick up their players. They've had enough time. Not saying people should start scouring for players to poach. But managing your roster ACCURATELY on both ProBoards and Fantrax is Fantasy 101. If you can't do that then...

[Twins GM (Mike)]

Guapo,

My post has NOTHING to do with poaching. I don't want to poach someone else's player. But if I search a player on Fantrax, find him unowned, make a selection based on that search, and only later discover the Proboards paper trail, how am I to be compensated for the loss of my draft pick, which occurred in large part due to someone else's neglect? You've not yet addressed that concern.

[z - Tim]

Jan 23, 2019 11:06:16 GMT -5 z - El Guapo - retired said:

Most of the false claims and bids are of obscure players and certainly not a year after they been won in bidding, traded for or drafted. The system is in place for establishing ownership. You only poach a player rather than notify the rightful owner for individual gain. That is strictly a vulture's position, not anything to do with Fantrax or the poor schmeal who forgot to roster his guy. No one tries to inadvertently leave a guy off his Fantrax; it is just something that occasionally happens. And it's easily corrected by a simply PM to the owner. Most omissions are because many of us are in several leagues and occasionally botch up rostering players. It isn't intentional -- unlike poaching, which is underhanded and done for gain.

If some here prefer to vulture a player rather than contact an owner, that says more about that individual than it does about any rule or procedure.

A poll on this subject would work.

Guapo, calling people vultures and poachers is taking it way too far. making these negative assumptions about others intentions is its own sort incivility. no one is required to check proboards right now, so if they dont it doesnt say anything negative about them regardless of how much you want that to be the case. if you prefer to use proboards fine, but no reason to impugn those that just follow the rules and use fantrax. if someone doesnt check proboards they have done nothing wrong. many people are just trying to make picks quickly and keep draft moving by the rules, they arent out to get others.

its ok if you prefer a different rules, but calling people out for following our current rules is a bit much.

[z - Tim]

Jan 23, 2019 10:58:04 GMT -5 Marlins GM (Anthony) said:

You, Brad and Scott were the poachers I was talking about

Just kidding, but good to know.

i know you are just joking, but in all honesty, who nominates a guy will have zero effect on my bids, its all about the amount for me. and i cant really judge that by who nominates. now, if ive seen some good manager bid high on a guy in another league, that i will take notice of. there are very much cross league issues with bidding since a lot of leagues have the same managers. maybe others view this differently, and i get the worry, but without $ associated i view who nominates as pretty much meaningless so i can always nominate for you if you want.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

Jan 23, 2019 12:54:45 GMT -5 z - Tim said:

Jan 23, 2019 10:58:04 GMT -5 Marlins GM (Anthony) said:

You, Brad and Scott were the poachers I was talking about

Just kidding, but good to know.

i know you are just joking, but in all honesty, who nominates a guy will have zero effect on my bids, its all about the amount for me. and i cant really judge that by who nominates. now, if ive seen some good manager bid high on a guy in another league, that i will take notice of. there are very much cross league issues with bidding since a lot of leagues have the same managers. maybe others view this differently, and i get the worry, but without $ associated i view who nominates as pretty much meaningless so i can always nominate for you if you want.

To clarify, when I mean poach. There are a good deal of teams that don't nominate players. They simply look at who the active teams are nominating. They could be doing this for a few reasons. But, for me it eliminates a large majority from having to do their own research. To look at who's a FA themselves. Instead, a few owners nominate them for everyone eliminating any kind of scenario where I bid on a guy that say...maybe only 5 teams knew was available rather than 30 teams? I understand, this doesn't likely apply for the upper echelon of UFA's. But it certainly applies for the middle/rest.

I didn't necessarily mean...The Phillies patiently wait on my UFA list every year in hopes of poaching someone I like. I just mean, it eliminates a large majority of the league having to research themselves who's available and who's not.

well, thats a different issue altogether. certainly some guys could go very cheap that way if people just didnt know they were available at all. but then thats a question of whether thats good for the league or not (its clearly good for the individual manager). most of these leagues operate on the premise that we want the create a more efficient bidding market for guys (public nominations) so that prices are more competitive rather than no nominations where prices become less so. the whole premise is making it more about who prices guys better than who can find guys no one else does. as much as i like the idea of getting a steal, i think the former is a more interesting competition.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

It'd be like the Dodgers calling the Yankees and saying..."Just wanted to let you know...Joe Kelly is a FA."

That's not how UFA works. There's a list, teams have to find it themselves it's not published on MLBGM.Sharepoint.com

[z - El Guapo - retired]

Some players are not owned on Fantrax simply because Fantrax itself doesn't list them. Not so on Proboards, where nothing appears except if it intentionally typed in. It is a running log and verifiable through Search. It's the reason almost every league (certainly all the ones we are in) uses proboards as its primary resource for running the league, while Fantrax is used for scoring, setting daily rosters, DL movement and such.

Ownership is determined on proboards. Someone's whose defense is that he checked on Fantrax but not on proboards doesn't want to know if the player is owned.

Proboards provides us with a verifiable time line, thus legitimizing ownership. All Fantrax does is reflect who was the first to add the guy, not ownership itself.

Or else, why do we even bother using Proboards? It's for the timeline.

[Twins GM (Mike)]

"Someone's whose defense is that he checked on Fantrax but not on proboards doesn't want to know if the player is owned."

I think this is the part with which I most disagree, not because it's NEVER true but because it's absolutely impossible to prove and therefore inadmissible as a governing assumption.

Speaking exclusively for myself, I can say that I did A LOT of research in preparation for the recent draft, and I did that research exclusively on Fantrax for the obvious reason that it's much, much easier to sort through unowned prospects there than it is to cross-check owned ones on Proboards. Not once did it occur to me that I might benefit should an owned prospect actually appear as unowned on Fantrax. I act in good faith, and I assume that others do likewise.