2074 Season Thread... Always Believe You Can(non)

[wdoupis]

It’s not a loop hole. You gotta protect guys on the 60 day by activating them

[Kslaze]

That’s dumb. Why would you have to activate someone who is still hurt?

[GeorgesGoons]

I can't speak for sure about '21 Kslaze, but in the past, we've always been able to protect guys on the DL, many guys, myself included, have forgotten to check the DL and ensure guys are protected.

Are you saying it's a known issue specifically with '21 that you simply can't protect a guy? Did anyone know this before this post?

I don't have an injured guy that's not on my 40 man so I can't see if you can add them or not. If someone can check their minors and see if they have an injured guy not on their 40 man and try to add them to it should tell us if this was/is an issue

[shel311]

I STILL remember when Seeit got Armando Ledesma from me after a season ending injury, and I didn't realize I had to check the DL to protect dudes.

That was in 2011, but I'm not bitter

[GeorgesGoons]

I can't speak for sure about '21 Kslaze, but in the past, we've always been able to protect guys on the DL, many guys, myself included, have forgotten to check the DL and ensure guys are protected.

Are you saying it's a known issue specifically with '21 that you simply can't protect a guy? Did anyone know this before this post?

I don't have an injured guy that's not on my 40 man so I can't see if you can add them or not. If someone can check their minors and see if they have an injured guy not on their 40 man and try to add them to it should tell us if this was/is an issue

of course, do this after you have exported if you don't want them on your 40 man

[shel311]

That’s dumb. Why would you have to activate someone who is still hurt?

To protect them. It's always been that way, right or wrong, just how it works in OOTP as I understand it.

[jeheinz72]

Couldn't you have taken him off the 60-day, protected him, had Rule 5 happen and then put him on the DL again?

Guys on the 60 have always been eligible (if they've got enough years) as far as I know

[jeheinz72]

And that's pussy shit if you're looking at it the second way

Disagree, protect your guy, it's that simple.

You(not literally you) are trying to circumvent the rules of the 40 man to basically get more than 40 guys "protected"

It's legit the same exact argument you're making that the Cincy dude did that got absolutely crushed by everyone in the league because it made no sense.

Then that Cincy guy has more sense than he's being given credit for.

I dunno - maybe I run a tighter ship than most. If the best use of my 26th roster spot is sinking someone else's prospect with virtually no upside for me and my team, I might as well fold up shop.

[Kslaze]

Never had to deal with it before so this is the first time I had someone I was supposed to protect on the DL. Figured if he was still hurt, he wouldn’t be eligible for the rule 5. But oh well. Fuck 21 again.

[GeorgesGoons]

Never had to deal with it before so this is the first time I had someone I was supposed to protect on the DL. Figured if he was still hurt, he wouldn’t be eligible for the rule 5. But oh well. Fuck 21 again.

this ain't a 21 thing. They have always been eligible

[shel311]

I dunno - maybe I run a tighter ship than most. If the best use of my 26th roster spot is sinking someone else's prospect with virtually no upside for me and my team, I might as well fold up shop.

If you have 2 outcomes:

- Outcome A you get essentially a free player who hits on that 5% chance(your hypothetical number) of being a useful ML player on your roster and thus taking a useful player off of someone else's roster
- Outcome B - You get the same free player and the 95% chance hits and he flops but there's quite literally no downside to your team for this happening since you got him for free, but you also take what could have likely been a useful player off of someone else's roster




You're going to have to explain to my why I would NOT take the guy if those are the 2 outcomes.

[GeorgesGoons]

I dunno - maybe I run a tighter ship than most. If the best use of my 26th roster spot is sinking someone else's prospect with virtually no upside for me and my team, I might as well fold up shop.

If you have 2 choices:

- Choice A you get essentially a free player who hits on that 5% chance(your hypothetical number) of being a useful ML player on your roster and thus taking a useful player off of someone else's roster
- Choice B - You get the same free player and the 95% chance hits and he flops but there's quite literally no downside to your team for this happening since you got him for free, but you also take what could have likely been a useful player off of someone else's roster




You're going to have to explain to my why I would take Choice B because that makes zero sense to do so.

maybe I'm still drunk from last night but I didn't understand that one bit...haha Aren't you saying the same thing? You get the player with both choices

[Kslaze]

If I have never had to do it before nor taken someone from someone’s DL, how would I know I had to protect him? Seems like a dumb rule to take injured players on the DL. But then again I lost players a few years ago even when they were protected but 21 “somehow had some glitches” and was told oh well. So basically it’s just the Wild West with this game.

[shel311]

maybe I'm still drunk from last night but I didn't understand that one bit...haha Aren't you saying the same thing? You get the player with both choices

Yea, it was worded horribly.

I changed the choices to what they should be, "outcomes"

If those are the 2 possible outcomes from taking a guy, why in the world would you not take the guy?

[nick]

When a player is on your 60 day IL they are no longer on your 40 man.

[GeorgesGoons]

If I have never had to do it before nor taken someone from someone’s DL, how would I know I had to protect him? Seems like a dumb rule to take injured players on the DL. But then again I lost players a few years ago even when they were protected but 21 “somehow had some glitches” and was told oh well. So basically it’s just the Wild West with this game.

Well it is wild west when it comes to rule 5 in this league

[shel311]

When a player is on your 60 day IL they are no longer on your 40 man.

Yea, that's the entire point of the 60 day DL, so you get the 40 man spot to add another guy.



Also, I'd suggest everyone view their entire roster than filter by Rule 5 eligible players. OOTP 21 has added that ability, and that makes it super simple to see the list of available guys in 1 spot.

[redwings8831]

The 60 day DL isn't a thing in the offseason.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/why-isnt-th ... ear-round/

[jeheinz72]

I dunno - maybe I run a tighter ship than most. If the best use of my 26th roster spot is sinking someone else's prospect with virtually no upside for me and my team, I might as well fold up shop.

If you have 2 outcomes:

- Outcome A you get essentially a free player who hits on that 5% chance(your hypothetical number) of being a useful ML player on your roster and thus taking a useful player off of someone else's roster
- Outcome B - You get the same free player and the 95% chance hits and he flops but there's quite literally no downside to your team for this happening since you got him for free, but you also take what could have likely been a useful player off of someone else's roster




You're going to have to explain to my why I would NOT take the guy if those are the 2 outcomes.

I guess what I'm saying is, any GM who is any good should have a WAY better use of the 26th spot than someone who is a 5% chance at an ok-player (again, I'm talkin the 20/55 types, not like 20/80) and destroying some other GMs ok-ish prospect.

I guess that's the part that annoys me, moreso than the act itself

[GeorgesGoons]

I dunno - maybe I run a tighter ship than most. If the best use of my 26th roster spot is sinking someone else's prospect with virtually no upside for me and my team, I might as well fold up shop.

If you have 2 outcomes:

- Outcome A you get essentially a free player who hits on that 5% chance(your hypothetical number) of being a useful ML player on your roster and thus taking a useful player off of someone else's roster
- Outcome B - You get the same free player and the 95% chance hits and he flops but there's quite literally no downside to your team for this happening since you got him for free, but you also take what could have likely been a useful player off of someone else's roster




You're going to have to explain to my why I would NOT take the guy if those are the 2 outcomes.

I guess what I'm saying is, any GM who is any good should have a WAY better use of the 26th spot than someone who is a 5% chance at an ok-player (again, I'm talkin the 20/55 types, not like 20/80) and destroying some other GMs ok-ish prospect.

I guess that's the part that annoys me, moreso than the act itself

Well, we do like to annoy people here. Been doing that for over a decade and a half