*** VD 15 Commentary Thread ***

[Ken]

Well, crap. I was told earlier in this thread that 2005 counted as contemporary, and that is what the spreadsheet did. I took Evans as early as I did because I thought Encarnacion was contemporary and I didn't want to take my last one. We need to get the rules sorted out. I get that it is each player's responsibility to know the rules, but when I am told something that matches up with the spreadsheet and then that isn't true. Well, crap. I probably would have taken E5 instead of Evans where I took Evans due to the franchise. Bleck.

The rules are spelled out in detail at the start of every draft.

http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showthread.php/17535-***-VD-15-Draft-Thread-***

Who said 2005?

[cavebird]

The rules are spelled out in detail at the start of every draft.

http://forum.rotojunkiefix.com/showthread.php/17535-***-VD-15-Draft-Thread-***

Who said 2005?

Johnny---and when I asked, the rule at the start of the draft thread wasn't updated (hell, I don't think the draft that had been started, but if it was, it had the old everyone after 1999 rule in it).

[cavebird]

Ryan Zimmerman was also taken as a contemporary hitter, but he's the same as Encarnacion. At least I thought he was taken as a contemporary hitter. His value goes way up if he's not.

[The Feral Slasher]

I think this is just part of the fun of not being confined and agreeing to a spreadsheet and allowing people to discover things on their own !!!

:runs and hides:

[Ken]

I always considered the rules description at the start of every draft as the rules.

[jmaeroff]

Ryan Zimmerman was also taken as a contemporary hitter, but he's the same as Encarnacion. At least I thought he was taken as a contemporary hitter. His value goes way up if he's not.

Correct.

[johnnya24]

It should have been 2005 inclusive not 2004. So the spreadsheet entries were correct. I was wrong with saying 2004.

The last VD letters draft rules say 2005 inclusive.

[johnnya24]

Given that I would suggest reverting to the correct rule as that is what the spreadsheet is compiled to reflect.

The players who picked contemporary players picked them as contemporary players, so there shouldn't be any feelings of injustice.

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

[cavebird]

Correct.

Did you think they were contemporary hitters when you took them? (Zimm and Encarnacion). If not, then you should at least get to repick on Encarnacion if you want given that the rules at the start said something different.

[jmaeroff]

Given that I would suggest reverting to the correct rule as that is what the spreadsheet is compiled to reflect.

The players who picked contemporary players picked them as contemporary players, so there shouldn't be any feelings of injustice.

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

But I didn't pick them as contemporary players. Zimmerman and Encarnación both debuted in 2005, and the draft rules said "contemporary" means 1999-2004. I picked them as "normals".

[cavebird]

Given that I would suggest reverting to the correct rule as that is what the spreadsheet is compiled to reflect.

The players who picked contemporary players picked them as contemporary players, so there shouldn't be any feelings of injustice.

Anyway, that's my suggestion.

That sounds good for me, but we should probably make sure that people weren't drafting with the wrong understanding. Fortunately, that's just one person, I think, because I think Zimmerman and E5 are the only two who have been taken that fall into that boat. And if he is good with that (and drafted them as contemporary hitters) we should just fix the typo at in the first post in the draft thread and move along.

[jmaeroff]

But I didn't pick them as contemporary players. Zimmerman and Encarnación both debuted in 2005, and the draft rules said "contemporary" means 1999-2004. I picked them as "normals".

I would not have picked them when I did if the rules had said 1999-2005.

[Bene Futuis]

Neither of them are contemp. You don’t need to repick anything, imo. Are we saying that at some point our rules for this draft said 2005 instead of 2004? I don’t believe that to be the case. Jake just made shrewd picks and kudos to him.

[DMT]

That sounds good for me, but we should probably make sure that people weren't drafting with the wrong understanding. Fortunately, that's just one person, I think, because I think Zimmerman and E5 are the only two who have been taken that fall into that boat. And if he is good with that (and drafted them as contemporary hitters) we should just fix the typo at in the first post in the draft thread and move along.

I would have taken Encarnacion had I known he was "normal".

[DMT]

It's an unfortunate error, but Jake shouldn't be punished for it.