Dodgers are Available

[Corey]

Not popularity by any means or I would back Aubrey, as he and I communicate very often.

Couldnt disagree more with the set up. What have you proven with the Padres? Nothing team is still losing cap and cant compete.

Jeff has totally turned around the Red Sox, and would deserve a chance to get a better team. So I can see where he thinks he should move up.

I simply backed Rick, because he was robbed of the first time.

Chris, going by the rules you should been replaced twice for inactivity.

[Corey]

Here is a thread where the Padres were open for replacement due to inactivity.

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=35276.0

So if we go by the actual rules... Which we should not, the tenure of the Padres needs to be changed.

[Dan Wood]

I was commish at the time. The Padres were vacated due to lack of activity.

But that isn't the issue at hand as far as I see it. The issue at hand is that we have a chance to correct a wrong that happened in the past. It's not a question a rules, it's a question of right.

Corey is correct, this has nothing to do with popularity. I have begged Rick to come back to this league on several occasions. His addition is good for this league.

This is not to disparage Chris at all, this is just to give my support to Rick.

[joeshmoe]

Not popularity by any means or I would back Aubrey, as he and I communicate very often.

Couldnt disagree more with the set up. What have you proven with the Padres? Nothing team is still losing cap and cant compete.

Jeff has totally turned around the Red Sox, and would deserve a chance to get a better team. So I can see where he thinks he should move up.

I simply backed Rick, because he was robbed of the first time.

Chris, going by the rules you should been replaced twice for inactivity.

I may have been absent for a period, but clearly I wasn't replaced and have always been active.  The other instance was at the end of the season, before the MLB had even finished (and going through a bad breakup; all documented).

To blatantly insult my management is ridiculous.  I took a team strapped in cap, with almost no starters and a bleak future.  The time frame for them to be a winner was never 2-3 years.  It has fantastic spects and a bright future.  I know this isn't a popularity contest but it sure seems that way.

As far as knocking Boston I won't do it.  But to suggest Boston and San Diego were in the same shape is a joke.  San Diego sat vacated due to the roster being so bad when I came and picked it up.  Nobody wanted it.  Boston has double the cap, which is much easier to navigate. 

First issue, the position is opened internally and then if not filled it is open to external members.  The only current member is me.  Discussion of Aubrey or Rick or Eric isn't even on the board until the position is passed over by members.  That's exactly what's happening here.  I am laying claim, as an existing member.  To skip over me is to blatantly ignore a procedure to deal with just this and to prevent hard feelings.

And although Rick was passed over for the opportunity in LAD before, I was passed over for the opportunity for NYY because the deal was set up and presented by Corey without any opportunity for those who had already put time into this league.  Hence the procedure.  The only way to prevent hard feelings is to follow the rule.

[joeshmoe]

Chris, going by the rules you should been replaced twice for inactivity.

When is the second time, other than october 2011?  Hasn't been an issue with my roster since!

[joeshmoe]

I was commish at the time. The Padres were vacated due to lack of activity.

But that isn't the issue at hand as far as I see it. The issue at hand is that we have a chance to correct a wrong that happened in the past. It's not a question a rules, it's a question of right.

Corey is correct, this has nothing to do with popularity. I have begged Rick to come back to this league on several occasions. His addition is good for this league.

This is not to disparage Chris at all, this is just to give my support to Rick.

A chance to right what wrong?  No offense but Rick quit the league.  I don't see anything wrong with saying the guy that quit has to be behind the guy that stuck with it.  I don't see what isn't right about my claim to change teams and take the opportunity available. 

[Corey]

I never said anything about your roster I said you have had issues with activity. I honestly believe that on three occasions you have gone 30 days plus with no activity so that would be a violation and each time you should be replaced.

[Corey]

He left because he was thoroughly screwed over the first time the Dodgers became available. So Dan is right this is the perfect time to right a wrong and allowed Rick to have the Dodgers like he should have had all along

[joeshmoe]

I never said anything about your roster I said you have had issues with activity. I honestly believe that on three occasions you have gone 30 days plus with no activity so that would be a violation and each time you should be replaced.

Believing doesn't make its true.  I was active all season last year, although my roster had almost no substitutes, not enough players.  I was active for two complete draft, deep into this last one.  And I was active through two FA periods.  Again not inactive.  And the number keeps growing, from 2-3...it's all hogwash outside of Oct. 2011 which was solved and I was awarded the team back due to merit (otherwise I wouldn't have been back).

And if you didn't discuss my roster, why bring up Boston and how he's worthy of a new team.  It's because you were saying I haven't done enough with the Padres so I don't deserve a new team.

He left because he was thoroughly screwed over the first time the Dodgers became available. So Dan is right this is the perfect time to right a wrong and allowed Rick to have the Dodgers like he should have had all along

And although Rick was skipped over that's not my fault and I can't be punished for it.  Furthermore, quit because of it.  Had I quit over NYY to OUDAN I wouldn't expect the league to bend over backwards and change the rules.  Finally, the discussion isn't even opened to Rick until the internal members choose not to take the position.  So any discussion of Rick is uncalled for.  The order of the situation is set up this way.  I'm sorry for Rick but I won't step aside and not claim the Dodgers.  I want to transfer and it's my choice before anyone but the few above me on the list.

Had Rick accepted it before and stuck it out, he would have had priority over me.  But he didn't.

[joeshmoe]

Ya know, the more I've sat here and thought about it..."two wrongs doesn't make a right" the argument of fixing a wrong that happened to Rick means another wrong occurs to me, or whoever else above me decides to put in for the job.  So what is that I get for being wronged?  If this league is concerned about wrongs and judges based on this, I will be wronged exactly as Rick was wronged.  It's okay to wrong me to fix the same wrong committed before?  May I quit the league and get first dibs on whatever team I decide is right for me to come out of retirement for?  Then everyone else who would have applied for that job will be wronged?  It's illogical from the root of it.