Off-Season On Hold (01-02)

[Clay]

Until we get a new owner in for Hartford.

I'll keep you updated. Feel free to send the Rule V lists as scheduled.

[Dave]

I have messages out to TJ, Acid, and Wessinmouse.

I'll let you know what I hear.

[Carlos]

I have messages out to TJ, Acid, and Wessinmouse.

I'll let you know what I hear.

What about dkgojackets?


Sent from my mobile device.

[Jake]

Harumph.

[Spear]

I have messages out to TJ, Acid, and Wessinmouse.

I'll let you know what I hear.

Da Sports Guy???

[Lintyfresh85]

This is stupid as hell.

[Delandis]

This is stupid as hell.

Nope. Its the off-season.

[tomr1962]

New Owner needs to be able to protect Neal then. Losing their Top Prospect would be bad.

[Jake]

So what if they lose Neal? New owners have been in worse spots. If you protect Neal for the new owner and not umd that's unfair IMO.

[Clay]

This probably needs to be figured out before hand. You guys can hash it out. Am I offering a new owner with the team as is, or does he get to protect Neal? I can't offer someone the team without the plan in place.

[fsquid]

fair enough

[Delandis]

I think it's silly that we are trying to enforce a technicality. What's even worse, we have gotten to the point that we are willing to lose a great owner over that same issue? We all know that Umd didn't mean to keep Neal unprotected. And I understand that Linty lost a great player but that was literally years ago. More recently, guys did the right thing for Matt with one of his top prospects. What is so different this time? Whether Umd stays or goes, I think the best thing to do is just allow Hartford to reselect Neal in the draft. We all know what Rule V is "supposed" to accomplish, gotcha moments like this are not it.

[Carlos]

I agree with Delandis.

To me there is clearly an issue when teams have 40-man space, have protected players and suddenly are angry because one of their prized pieces is left unprotected.

If they have space and actually made an attempt to protect someone, but didn't protect one of their best prospects, we have to consider they fucked up and help rather than take advantage of them.

However, I wish umd had instead approached Jistic, me, everyone after and asked if they could help him.

I've been asked before to help an owner out and weighing the obvious decided it was in the league's best interest to help the owner out.

I'm sure Jistic, myself, anyone, would have done the same for umd. Now he's gone.


Sent from my mobile device.

[spot]

I agree with Delandis.

To me there is clearly an issue when teams have 40-man space, have protected players and suddenly are angry because one of their prized pieces is left unprotected.

Yup. I really don't think that there is a "fairer" way to come down on this. On the one hand he didn't protect him with many, many warnings. This is known.

On the other hand the Rule V isn't designed for "gotcha" moments. It's a lot shitty to think that a team's #1 prospect is going to be lost.

I am for getting rid of the Rule V for many reasons, but losing an owner because of it now sits firmly at the top of the list.

Not sure if there is a way to resolve this without umd walking but I think that should be the goal, IMO.

[BradZ]

#DttRV #crazypills