Self Editor

Forum: base
Page 19305
Subject: Gurupie 20 2007 Regular Season Discussion III

Posted by: Ref - Donor [539581218] Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 21:16

Previous Thread

Now that the Prospect Draft is complete, it's a good time to start another thread.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Tue, Jul 10, 2007, 21:26

I'm inclined to suggest that we expand the prospect system (starting at the 2008 prospect draft) to 4 prospects. From 3.

Before I write anything up or anything, I'd like to test the waters -- what do people think of this idea.

Toral

Twarpy
ID: 53443916
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 00:30

I could be convinced of going to four, but would like to hear the merits first. It seems that a lot of the picks were young long shots, and there wasnt a whole lot of depth to this draft. While on that point I realize the aim of the G20/24 leagues was to mimic real teams as best as possible, and drafting 18 year olds could be interesting too.

Personally I would love to find a way to make prospect picks more tradeable, I think that is the only thing that is lacking with them, I was able to grab David Wright and Delmon Young via draft day trades, but it was hard to get prospect picks earlier than that.

One thought I had to make them more valuable is if you trade away them that spot remains the posession of the team you traded them to, until that designated player loses prospect status in which case the original owner gets that spot back.

IE I trade Toral Jeff Niemann or my 2008 pick, Toral keeps that spot in addition to his three keepers next year, and I will only have two spots until Niemann is no longer considered a prospect or the person he picked with the 2008 pick as an example.

Hard to explain and its just a draft idea, but I would like to see prospect picks have more value.

Perm Dude
ID: 296341119
Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 21:05

With 20 teams, I don't really see the need to increase the prospect draft even further. Not only would the late round picks lose value (IMO), but you would practically eliminate the ability of a team to take a shot on a WW pickup of a young player, since more of those young players would be locked up.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 00:29

PermDude Not only would the late round picks lose value

That is an error committed by those who cannot or do not think.

Late round picks would gain value. If you have a container of 40 near-identical players, the manager who can identify the really better ones has more desire to get the higher picks. That creates value.

Your unwillingness to research a fourth round because of your laziness or lack of knowledge does not equate to a loss of objective value.

PermDude you would practically eliminate the ability of a team to take a shot on a WW pickup of a young player, since more of those young players would be locked up.

Bullshi*t.

That is an elementary fallacy. Increased scarcity of young players makes their value go up, not down.

Toral

Toral
ID: 575542418
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 06:13

I thank pd for his willingness to comment.

What about some of the good managers: are you inclined to support an increase in prospects from 3 to 4 for 2008?

Toral

Toral
ID: 575542418
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 06:46

I meant to say, "the rest of the managers". That is -- can't everybody give a tentative view, pro or con?

Toral

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 12:44

Toral - dude this ain't the Poli board. You could have made those points in response to PD with a little less 'ooomph'/personal rip.

In regards to your second point to PD in post #5 - I interpreted PD's point differently. His point made no reference to value in regards to a decrease in quality WW pickups....he simply stated that his opinion was that there would be fewer young players available on the WW.

In regards to the possible proposal, on the surface I could be convinced to favor it. I enjoy prospects and enjoy finding those future stars. However, not all in the league have the same interest and in other prospect rules discussions it came across pretty strongly that the limitation to 60 total prospects was a compromise to balance things out for both sides of the prospect spectrum.

I agree in principle that Prospect Draft Picks and the right prospects could (and should) be of greater value. But like in any other situation of exchanging value, the person on the other side has to see that value too. I can try to convince "Manager X" in this league until I'm blue in the face, but if that manager doesn't have the interest, it's a moot point. So even if your suggestion was passed, the increase in value you seek might only be shared by whatever percentage of managers who appreciate that same value, and you don't get the bang for your buck you were seeking.

Trip
Leader
ID: 13961611
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 14:13

I am wholly for increasing the prospect draft pool, I think we could go at least 5 deep. That's 100 prospects total, a completely reasonable number, especially considering that we have the Japanese league prospects. It would also eliminate teams carrying prospects on their active roster.

As it is, I will more than likely call up David Price prior to the prospect draft next year even before he is in the bigs, just so I don't lose my first rounder. That being said, I was in favor of an increased prospect list before being stuck with my current dilemma.

darkside
Achiever
ID: 3590317
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 18:33

I'm not opposed to the idea of adding more prospects. I think if it were done we should start by just adding one. Might make it more likely to take a chance on HS players who were drafted or maybe taking a flyer on someone w/ a lot of potential who hasn't quite worked things out yet.

It would decrease the number of players that are on the waiver wire that rebuilding teams (like mine) or someone with a roster spot could stash away (right now I've got Buchholz, Lester (who I kept), Gio Gonzalez, and Dukes (who I drafted) on my squad. I wouldn't be surprised if we had 4 prospect spots if either Gonzalez or Buchholz would have been on the wire if we had that additional spot. But, my guess is there would still be some diamond in the rough out there that I could have grabbed.

To summarize, I don't really care strongly either way. I see pros and cons to keeping it and to changing it.

darkside
Achiever
ID: 3590317
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 18:36

I should have said...

I wouldn't be surprised if we had 4 prospect spots if either Gonzalez or Buchholz would not have been on the wire if we had that additional spot.

Perm Dude
ID: 366271218
Thu, Jul 12, 2007, 19:42

he simply stated that his opinion was that there would be fewer young players available on the WW.

Exactly. With so many teams in this league (in which the draft is already heavily emphasized), eliminating even more players from the waiver wire is going the wrong directly.

I'm not against prospect research (in the Political Forum league I drafted and nurtured VMart for a couple of years) and I believe the addition of prospects to this league has been a good one. I remain unconvinced that expanding the role of the prospect draft by 25% is worth the concomitant lessening of the value of the waiver wire as the season develops and draft strategy turns to in-season strategy.

Toral, I think, has the Political Forum in his head, sees my name, and goes "personal attack" on me. Like the current Administration, he commits the error of equating the strength of his response with its value. Louding or rudely proclaiming "black is white!!" or "more prospect picks make them each worth more!!" doesn't make it so.

It is a little funny that Toral gets out the beating stick on my innocent post, then wonders aloud where the next comments are.

pd

R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Fri, Jul 13, 2007, 19:46

Gonzalez and Buchholz were not near the top 80 at this time last year, so I doubt even if we had 4 prospects each that they would be on a prospect roster this year.

The top cream-of-the-crap guys will always be on a rebuilding team's roster. The extra prospect slots would just add an extra spot for long-term guys are more risk-reward types. (Basically just the bottom of a top 100 list.)

So I'd be in favor of an increase.

R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Fri, Jul 13, 2007, 19:47

LOL, crap=crop.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Fri, Jul 13, 2007, 20:54

I totally missed Kendrick starting today and he is of course throwing a nice game on my bench. I'm sure he's saving his big implosion for when I start him. I do have Pelfrey still in the active lineup and he just came in relief, so I'm sure he'll get hammered instead.

Code Cracker
ID: 30333118
Sat, Jul 14, 2007, 08:53

Commishes - please send Felix Pie down for me and I will fill the empty spot. Thanks.

Code Cracker
ID: 30333118
Sat, Jul 14, 2007, 09:12

Cards, please check your email for a replacement.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Sat, Jul 14, 2007, 10:33

Pie sent back down with salary added. Garret Anderson added and started in place of Ibanez per email request of Code Cracker.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Jul 16, 2007, 12:49

I have found that there are some managers who are so interested in prospects that they're more than happy to stash them on their roster to make sure they get them. This would happen no matter how many prospects there are--unless that meant all of the legit prospects were already taken in the draft. I felt this year was the toughest prospect draft ever as most of the best prospects seemed to be very young and far away from the majors. If we added another prospect, all that seems to mean is that we are adding either another HS player or a non-legit prospect. So you'd either have to drop them next year or wait several years for it to pan out--thus discounting the call-up advantage before the next draft (or 2 or 3 drafts). I also believe that it's tough enough to find WW players as it is and if we stash another 20 players on the prospect list, there may be non-legit prospects who we can't even use to fill-in for an injury.

The current rules were arrived at as a compromise to get the prospect rule into the league (by one vote). There has been some manager turnover and the Japanese addendum got in last year by one vote as well. We had asked for any rule proposals before the draft and none came forth. However, because of the mid-season draft, we allow rule changes to be made in the preseason as well as before prospect keepers are due. So there is plenty of time for discussion should there be enough support for a proposal to take it to vote. As far as Twarpy's proposal, that would be a nightmare to try and commish and keep track of. But if that's what the league ultimately decides, we'd figure out some way to do it.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 17, 2007, 00:40

Toral, Just a heads up, Kendrick is on the DL and in your active lineup.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 10:38

Without comment, the exact word-for-word headline now appearing on CBS Sportsline's page:

Feds investigating ref's alleged tie to gambling, organized crime

Let me say, ref, I don't believe a word of it.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 11:12

I was framed, I tell ya.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 20:59

You're quite right that I was unfair to pd. Probably screwed the chance of my own proposals passing as a result, as pd is one of the most popular players in the history of the hobby..

But I am more confused by ref's response. Is there some rule that we can only consider rules change proposals like this before the prospect draft or in pre-season?

If so:

*what is the rule;
*when was it enacted;
*what is its purpose?"

I would consider a time like this -- right after the prospect draft -- to be the perfect time to consider a change in rules. We've just been through it; we've just had to think about it; we have the working of the system and the good of the league in our heads more than future plans designing to trick the league into gaining a desired player (whoops, sorry, Species).

So -- what are the rules for when a manager may propose a change in rules?

Toral

Species
ID: 386261920
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 23:31

Toral - completely separating your issue of when one is allowed to propose a rule change......I'm disappointed by your insinuation here and wonder why you are basically insulting yourself in the process.

I'm curious as to how exactly I "tricked" the league? Was there some facet of the rule under consideration that was beyond your comprehension or not clearly stated?

Regarding the desired player......need I remind you that 11 picks transpired, including one of yours, before Matsuzaka was picked. Not much trickery involved there, IMO.

So, as politely as I can say it, you can take your insinuation and stick it up where the sun don't shine :)

Perm Dude
ID: 54650208
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 23:32

That would be Canada?

Toral
ID: 575542418
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 23:46

Um, Species...that was a compliment :) You never said, "Say there's some great players in these Jap leagues...guys like this "Matsuzaka", and we ought to open these fine players up to all our teams."

It was a Species stratagem; it was done for your own purposes, not for the good of the league. That's what all your wiles and energy were put into. You can put an ":)" on your posts for your own purposes; but no one with a brain will ever believe that any proposal you make is done for the good of the league again. We will know it is done for yourself. (And many of us will still have kept the mass league e-mails you sent out in defence of your proposal as well.)

Everyone knows that whenever he deigns to listen to an argument from Species, purporting to be about the good of the league, he should check immediately thereafter whether he still has his wristwatch, and should check his pocket to see if his wallet is still there. Because it will probably not be.

Toral

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 00:07

Toral, let me ask you when is the right time to propose something. The mere thought of asking the league after the season started our first year if it would changing the keepers from 7 to 9 would be something the league would even consider sent you into a frenzy. So we waited until before the next year to propose it and it passed with flying colors. Maybe you've had a change of heart since then, but we did ask over and over before the draft if anyone had any rule proposals for the following year (rules that woudl go into effect following the draft) and no one piped up. Prosects are a little looser as we made it so you could propose rule changes not only before the prospect keeper deadline but also before the Regular Keepers are due before the season. But in actuality, we can do whatever we want whenever we want if that's what the league wants. That's why we have a vote.

Species
ID: 386261920
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 00:07

LOL - you know how to flatter someone, because I don't like to compliment people by insinuating that they hoodwinked leaguemates that they mostly consider friends!

But Toral --- certainly you have to grant me the point that there wasn't a single team in this league that did not realize that my lobbying had a portion of personal interest behind it. Anyone who couldn't tell that I didn't have a particular player in mind just wasn't paying attention.

That being said, two things can be equally true. I could have had my designs on Matsuzaka AND I could have felt that the Japanese addendum would add to the league. An example is, as I'm sure you noticed, another Japanese professional baseball player was drafted this year, and quite highly too, by someone other than myself.

I won't deny I wanted Matsuzaka and sure I petitioned for the chance to get my hands on him. If you do not want to believe me that at the same time I also felt that this wrinkle would add an unique, fun and challenging aspect for ALL teams, then I guess there's nothing more I can do.

Would you hold this - from my POV - resentment if someone else had drafted him?

Toral
ID: 575542418
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 00:31

Species:

Would you hold this - from my POV - resentment if someone else had drafted him

I hold no resentment whatsoever. I intuited perfectly well that I was being snookered, and nevertheless voted for your proposal. Did you think I voted for it because I believed you had a general good-will interest in improving our league by making more foreign players available to it?

Did you think you were fooling me about the reason you wanted it?

Ref:

You make some points. Some people do not immediately understand that some types of rule proposals (perfect example: changing keepers before a season) are unfair and unethical. I could give you some classic examples from another league that I'm in...but I won't. While a change (now), to change the number of prospects drafted in 2008, a year from now isn't (IMO).

Actually what I asked you is what the timelines for rules change proposals were.

You haven't told me.

So just tell me.

Or...let's go back to square one...is there anyone who believes that a rules change being made now to change the number of prospects being drafted a year from now, in 2008, would be unfair?

Probably not, I would guess.

So just tell me what the official timelines for making such proposals now (and how they were established; if they are not written, whether all 3 commissioners agree on them; how we can vote to change them etc.)

Toral

Great One
ID: 201155199
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 08:47

He definitely snookered all of us. We were all blind!
Because nobody watched the World Baseball Classic and saw the MVP of the tourney who they informed us was heading to the US the following season... oh wait.

Japanese starter Daisuke Matsuzaka, who gained the victory by giving up only one run in four innings while striking out five, was named the tournament’s Most Valuable Player. He finished 3-0, 1.38 in three WBC starts–getting three of Japan’s five total WBC wins–by also defeating Chinese Taipei and Mexico in earlier rounds.

“It was my first experience to pitch in a game with the world championship on the line,” said Matsuzaka, who is interested in jumping to the major leagues as early as next season. “I was going to feel a lot of pressure as this is something you can not purchase. But I did not feel much of it once I got up on the mound.”

“It’s No. 1. It’s amazing. We’re champions,” said tournament MVP Daisuke Matsuzaka, Japan’s starting pitcher who’s hoping he caught the attention of some major league scouts.

According to ESPN’s Jim Caple: The The next great Japanese import, no matter how great Matsuzaka is in Japan and in World Baseball Classic , he will try his best to Major League soon.

“I believe that Major League Baseball is the best league in the whole world, and I would like to see what I could do in that league,” Matsuzaka said after Japan beat Cuba 10-6 on Monday night. “That’s what I have in my mind.'’

Yep... Species really pulled the wool over our eyes!

Peter N.
ID: 22573013
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 19:26

Toral reminds me of my most recent ex girlfriend who just loved drama and had no problem starting it. ;-)

Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 22:27

Guess I picked the right night to gove Willie Harris his first start of the season....

6-6, 2 3B, 6 RBI, 4 R, SB, 1.000 OBP

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 22:32

Nice mbj!

I've benched Feliz twice in the last couple weeks and both times he went deep. Today was the latest.

beastiemiked
ID: 65112917
Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 13:24

If anyone is interested in Carpenter drop me a line. Not looking for too much in return so if you have any interest contact me asap so I don't deal him for a bag of balls.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 14:19

Just to clarify something.

We are well aware about AGonz is still in Twarpy's lineup.

I don't perceive there is anything wrong about posting or emailing a friendly reminder to a fellow manager if said manager has a player who is definely OUT in their lineup. If youw ant to copy the commishs, then fine. If someone is on the DL, bereavement list, restricted list, etc. then they are out an extended period of time.

It's not that Twarpy is tanking, but neither were my team, Cards' team and the several other teams who have been forced to make a transaction in order to cover their lineup. Cards and I for example would have rather not let go of a player we wanted to keep to pick up scrub catchers for ours on the DL. In my case, it really hurt my stats as well as shorting my lineup. Others have been in the same predicament. So there is an advantage by not putting an active player in your lineup. We got a couple messages on Toral but his case was a different. Although heleft a Dl player in his lineup for several days, he has a player on his team already that could play in that position. He obviously didn't notice that the guy was on the DL.

Twarpy and I have talked about this situation a few times. He's well aware of it but he thought AGonz could come back at any day. I was first notified by a fellow manager of the situation about 10 days ago when AGonz was placed on the bereavement list. He had already missed 3 days. I didn't know how long the B-list lasted and Twarpy was on so I asked him. he had no idea either. I had just come back from out of town and had no clue. I read where he might be back that next day so told T it was a non-issue. Then the next day read where the B-list would/could last until last Friday. Again, D2D so left the ball in his court.

Then the next day or two we read that he would then go on the restricted list. T asked, How long is that? Well I didn't know and didn't have time to look it up. Yesterday morning, we read that AGONZ would be on the restricted list at least until Friday at which time we told Twarpy he had to pick up a SS. He still hasn't and I got another msg today asking me about it.

I'm torn as I honestly think, hey, it's his team. He's in first. He should be able to manage it in whatever way he sees fit. But we've seen many other teams near the bottom over the years basically stakc their team with prospect or injured players and fail to fill out their active lineup.

So we'd like to ask the league how you feel about this rule in general. Obviously, we've decided that you must have your lineup filled and that is the rule as of now. But waht do we do if someone ignores the commish directive to fill it (not saying T has done that as he might be away) and how long do we wait? Last year we finally had to make a change in a player's lineup as he refused to bench his DL players for active players on his bench. But when you don't have a replacement, what is fair? Dropping the last player that manager picked up so there is an open spot? And how long would we wait? We'd prefer not to get involved like that but what good is a rule if we can't take steps to enforce it?

Again, this is not a huge issue. We'd prob. never get that far. Just trying to figure out what the league prefers us to do in these situations.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 16:29

Thats a tricky situation. It almost seems like this rule should have a clause where if you are in the top 5 it doesn't apply to you or something like that...

I'd say unless somebody is officially on the DL and you continue to start him, then it's not really something that should be enforced. Being on the bereavement list further complicates that theory though because that can be a couple days or an extended period like in this situation.

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 16:33

First and foremost, my opinion is that I do not want to stray from the requirement to field a full, active lineup. Filling your bench with prospects or whatever is fine, but if a starting position player goes down, you have to cut someone from the bench to pick up a replacement. This requirement has cost me the likes of Josh Fields, Chris B. Young and Bobby Jenks (to name some off the top of my head) over the years, but it is a completely legitimate/reasonable rule and I had no qualms about following it.

I'm glad you are recognizing Twarpy's situation for what it is. While on the whole Alex Gonzalez has been out a while, based upon the best available information at various points in time, each time new news came out it made it seem as if his return was forthcoming - i.e. 3 or 4 days. Well you string that along 3 times and you are into double digits. It's not Twarpy's fault that the available information kept changing. It's comparable to StLCards' Ramon Hernandez situation earlier in the year, except at some point he definitely got put on the DL and you had a set amount of time he was 100% out, which then prompted the requirement to fill that position.

In regards to unresponsive teams, I would think that 1 week is enough time to act after multiple attempts to contact. I wouldn't have a problem stating in the rules that after "X" days a commissioner has the authority to insert someone from the team's bench to replace an inactive player (could be via injury or sent down to the minors, whatever). Now cutting someone and replacing them with a waiver guy?!? Totally different and probably discussed publicly if the manager in question is unresponsive.

Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 16:41

It's his team

We don't need to go any farther than that.

This question is, essentially: How far do we micromanage the individual teams? Unless a manager has abandoned the team completely, my answer would be: We don't.

If the question isn't accompanied by the assertion that a team has been abandoned, then we don't get to the question of individual roster moves (or non-moves). Nor to we have to solicit and then assert the persuasiveness of the reason for the move (or non-move).

Last place or first doesn't matter. If the manager is still involved then the league should stay uninvolved.

IMO.

pd

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 16:56

PD, while I agree with you on the premise, species is also right as that is what the league wanted. On Monday, I believe, we found out that AGonz could NOT return before Friday at the earliest. Like Species and I said before, this is not so much about Twarpy as to clarify the rule in general. I cut a player and got a backup SS when I found out that Hanley was OUT for the next few days although he's officially D2D.

I would NEVER pickup a WW player for a team. That is not fair to us as commishs or the league in general. But if we were to say remove the last player added to a team (worst case scenario and hopefully would never have to be done) at least there is an enforcable rule. Then there is an empty spot on the team where a certain manager can't say there isn't room or no one to drop. Problem is what if said player is a huge player at that time or newfound closer, etc. That could cause mjor problems.

Also, I don't go looking for issues with individual teams. If anyone takes offense with another manager trying to help them out by alerting them to a player who is OUT and in their active lineup then that is on them. I'd be thankful if someone let me know as I ight have missed it. We all have things going on in rl, but if I get a note on a manager, I would be doing a disservice not to address it based on our current rules. when I aksed Twarpy about it, I couldn't even remember the player!!! He found it before I did.

Perm Dude
ID: 386132511
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 16:59

I don't believe the league authorized this level of micromanagement, Ref. The league previously discussed participation level in response to a team which was abandoned virtually all season, not a team with a player which might or might not return at any time.

I, too, am glad for the clarification, if only to state that if a team isn't abandonded then the league should butt out.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Jul 25, 2007, 17:07

Also tricky is when a player is D2D for a number of days and then put on DL retroactively and there are only a limited number of days left.

GO is absolutely right about B and R list. They are definitely OUT, but how long.

This is from wikipedia:

Bereavement list - Major League players may be placed on the bereavement list due to severe illness or death of that player’s or his spouse’s immediate family. Minimum period is 3 days, maximum 7 days. Players on this list are counted towards the Reserve List Limit but not the Active List Limit.

Restricted list - Players who fail to report within 10 days of the season, or who fail to come to a contract with the team prior to that time. Players on this list do not count towards the Reserved List or Active List limits. A player may remain on this list for two consecutive years before he is removed. Often, placing a player on the Restricted List is akin to releasing him without fully relinquishing his rights.

Of course there are suspended lists and about a dozen or more others. I am not a micromanager and would rather not deal with these pesky things, but it's in the rules so clarification and an enforcable solution is requested. As Species alluded, we have a precedent of going in and changing a manager's lineup for him but that was one time and do not care to do that except in an extreme circumstance. We ended up removing said manager in-season a little later.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 17:18

Re: 40 I don't believe the league authorized this level of micromanagement, Ref. The league previously discussed participation level in response to a team which was abandoned virtually all season, not a team with a player which might or might not return at any time.

Prior to this season there was a question of clarification. The league agree w/o objection to what species posted. You can't even go a day w/o an eligible player (like catcher) out of your lineup and you must replace a player who is definitely OUT.

PD, perhaps you forgot about that discussion or perhaps didn't participate in that. This was based on a question from StL Cards, Peter N and one other manager from last season. It wasn't based on a manager who was inactive.

In every instance this year where we've had to say something, it was brought to our attention by another manager. Furthermore, we would step in well before a team would be "abandoned virtually all season." Pretty tough to have league integrity if you let a team stay abandoned virtually all season or let teams say screw the active lineups I want prospects for the future.

Again, I'm more in favor to let teams do what they deem but since THE LEAGUE MANDATED THAT WE ENFORCE TEAMS TO HAVE PLAYERS WHO ARE ACTUALLY PLAYING IN THEIR LINEUPS, we have asked for clarification for what exactly the league would like us to do and how they'd like us to enforce it should there be a situation that needs addressed. Obviously, we could simply remove any manager for any reason. It's a private league. But when you put all the time and effort into a Keeper League like this, it's very important for us to not only do what we can to retain current owners, but keep the integrity for the other managers playing the game. That's why we ask for input and assistance instead of simply making widesweeping declarations of how it's going to be.

Perm Dude
ID: 386502613
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 17:47

we have asked for clarification for what exactly the league would like us to do and how they'd like us to enforce it should there be a situation that needs addressed

Absolutely. This is exactly what I thought you were asking. My response to that is above. Surely you're not asking for clarification and then rejecting it, right?

Now, maybe the league agreed that I should insert a slumping player into the lineup if there is room. Or play a SP @ Coors if I have a P slot available. But (again) this all comes from the question of teams remaining active and competitive overall.

I tried finding the thread in which this was discussed but cannot find it. I don't believe that the requirement was to "field a full, active lineup" each and every day--there are plenty of reasons not to play a particular player, IMO. But I'm certainly willing to be convinced if that was the case--I just cannot locate the discussion at all.

So somewhere we have to strike a balance, IMO. My suggestion above was that so long as the manager remains competitive then we need not mandate individual roster moves. Is that too much? (I'm not being facetious--if the league has already decided the question of mandating roster moves of this sort then the question is moot, IMO.)

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 17:59

NO, not rejecting it PD. But your comments is against what the league stated. We repeated it and asked for any objection to see if we needed a vote--there were none. It's prob in one of the preseason threads.

I totally agree with the last part of your post. This really pretains to hitters. Pitchers you can bench at any time. You would rotate out of one anyway. It's funny because one manager we gave a heads-up to about one of his players thanked us for letting him knowas he had missed the info and then asked us if we'd seen two other managers who had hurt players in their lineup. One was a Pitcher. And I told him that he would be rotated out of anyhow and that didn't matter.

I felt that if you didn't wnat to play a hitter then fine, I shouldn't have to do so. But the thoughts were that we needed to have players in our active lineup. I do agree there needs to be a balance. The league was unanimous in that D2D players were up to us to figure out whatever we wanted to do. But someone must be in that active position. I can't bench a slumping Pedro Feliz for instance if I don't have another 3b to put in his spot.

I don't feel that anyone should tell me I can't do that. But the issue has arisen over the past few years with teams wanting to work on future years in deference to their current active lineup. I think that's what GO meant by the top few teams shouldn't apply. But is that fair? That's all that we're asking. Clarify what is fair and keeps league integrity and when you ask us to do something when it crosses that line and the manager is unresponsive, how wold you like us to enforce it?

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 18:32

PD - allow me to be another point of view and offer my recollection of the discussion about appropriate team activity. The main point of the discussion was directed towards rebuilding teams. Let's use mine from 2005 and 2006 as obvious examples.

I stocked my 2005 team with guys like Prince Fielder, Rickie Weeks, Hanley Ramirez, Jeff Franceour, Jeremy Hermida, Chris Ray and others that were NOT up in MLB at the time and were, undoubtedly, trade bait or keeper plays. To some this strategy was not popular, as obviously it would limit my ability to rotate pitchers and find better hitters on the waiver wire. But there was certainly a method to the madness, and it was obvious that I was rebuilding and making distinct efforts to improve my team over the long haul.

Where the legitimate rub came was ensuring that I was putting forth sufficient effort to keep the 15 players in my starting lineup healthy and active.....i.e. I wasn't "tanking" on purpose and was at least fielding a complete team that could possibly put up sufficient stats that could have an effect in certain categories to be fair to the league.

This DID mean:

- Having no players on the DL in my active lineup....if I had to cut a prospect to do that, I was SOL

This DID NOT mean:

- If an otherwise healthy player had a day off in their schedule that I had to replace them with someone playing that day
- That I would be forced to rotate pitchers

Forgive us if there was any hint of some "Big Brother"-like micromanagement suggested in these discussions. None of us want that, but as Ref said, the league DOES want to maintain a standard of activity, and requiring managers to be active enough to field a healthy lineup to me is not overstepping any lines.

Code Cracker
ID: 300152013
Mon, Jul 30, 2007, 20:47

LOL darkside. You dropped Nelson Cruz and picked up Nelson Cruz. I bet that's never happened in this league.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 10:50

How about this thought... you must have enough active players to fill all the starting spots - but you don't neccessarily need to start them.

So if my guy is pitching at Coors and I want to bench him, I can throw in a DL guy for the day to fill in.... I have enough active players to start, but am making the strategy move to bench the guy for the day.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 10:51

GO, that has always been the caveat for pitching. It's hitters where we seem to have the issue from time to time.

Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:01

Full trade disclosure:

BJ21 gets Manny Corpas, plus my 13th and 14th round picks in the 2008 suppl. draft

I get Aaron Laffey plus BJ21's 3rd and 7th round picks in the 2008 suppl. draft

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:05

Wow, guess that bj missed the fact that Fuentes will be moved back into the closer role tomorrow.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 17:06

Ok, that was just mean! ;)

Nice trade! (Just kidding about Fuentes!)

Great One
ID: 201155199
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 19:04

You scared the crap out me there, I just dropped Fuentes in another league to give the Beniot/Otsuka duo a shot...

darkside
ID: 181035120
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 19:04

RE: 46

Yeah, I picked up the first Cruz and then look at my team and don't see him...until I scroll down to the pitchers. Whoops. Those middle initials (and team names) are important!

blackjackis21
ID: 376113022
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 19:41

Yeah, as I told Guru, not sure why I wanted Corpas so bad (not that a third and seventh round pick are the end of the world) other than I was so mad at myself for not picking him up when I had the chance.

I don't think I'd drop Fuentes just yet GO - today's Denver Post has Corpas saying he realizes he's just keeping the seat warm for Fuentes.

Like I also told Guru, I gotta hope Fuentes isn't quite ready to come back for a while and/or that he stinks when he does.

Perm Dude
ID: 2625319
Tue, Jul 31, 2007, 21:06

Lots of closer changes. Dotel & Gagne both traded into setup roles.

Peter N.
ID: 426242722
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 01:24

Yeah PD, and both Wilson and Soria closing to fill those gaps. :-)

R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 12:51

Yay, another good news update on Gagne! I've had such great luck with him... ;)

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 12:57

You Canadians are suckers for your own. Gagne, Harden, Bedard......Matt Stairs

Toral
ID: 575542418
Thu, Aug 02, 2007, 22:18

Mike Lamb. Pinch-hit grand slam.

O ye of little faith.

Twarpy
ID: 53443916
Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 04:04

Don't forget Morneau who I once owned...Species do I get an advance on our bet, since Im kicking your ass so hard...even Bay is being a good Canadian and helping me out.

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 11:35

Props dude.....you had the proper balance of hitting and pitching to win this year. Ref had too many pitchers and not enough thump, while my young aces flopped and my early picks flopped even worse. After Clemens' debacle yesterday I would consider myself in full "seller" mode....if there was anyone to sell TO!

To get paid on that bet, you have to get your ass to Phoenix in March. We can tweak the calendar to get some weekend on there if it will help, but I will be going to that hockey game on Tuesday!

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Aug 03, 2007, 11:41

My hitters have actually done better lately, but still are not living up to their potential. Still, it would take a lot to overcome that huge deficit. It's definitely Twarpy's to lose.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:42

I have called up Billy Butler for the first time.

GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 23:08

Could a Commissioner call up Justin Upton for me for the first time.
I dropped Fontenot to make room.

Thanks,
Cliff

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 23:14

Got it Cliff.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 14:58

I apologize, I went illegal today as I didn't realize the Pena/Dontrelle trade processed this morning. I hate that it locks everybody in for the entire freaking day... but this is nothing new so I digress.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 15:01

GO, Cards and I have been asking for awhile now for them to switch that.

Looks like your 1b isn't playing today anyhow.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 15:08

Thats true, so at least I didn't waste a game or anything.

This Botts guy looks like he has some potential. I hope he gets OF eligibility sooner than later. Need 8 more by next season!

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Thu, Aug 09, 2007, 18:15

Looking back, I am VERY dissatisfied with my draft.

Round 1 - Eric Chavez - bad back. Maybe done for the year
Round 2 - Marcus Giles - case of suckiness & benched
Round 3 - Dan Wheeler - now a set-up guy for Al freakin' Reyes on a team that rarely wins.
Round 4 - Craig Monroe - I'm just glad I found someone to trade him to. He killed me last season, and I'm still bitter.
Round 5 - none
Round 6 - Gerald Laird - Boo
Round 7 - none
Round 8 - Zach Duke - I think David Duke might pitch better.

It's amazing that I'm in 12th place, and was even in 8th (if for only one day) a couple weeks ago.

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 11:18

Cards, remember when you acquired Tulowitzki for a 2nd rounder and got a "you must be related" comment? yeah... and yet Boof Bonser didn't raise an eyebrow for the same (or more?)... who's laughing now!? :)

Perm Dude
ID: 337121310
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 11:28

Yeah, Bonser really dropped off. He was actually OK through the beginning of June, and at this point I feel like I have to give him more rope just because I paid so much for him. I'm probably not alone in that quirk!

Still, I wasn't looking for a lot of wins, but a decent WHIP & K's after building on a very good rookie year.

Blah!

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 11:36

I was high on Bonser too in my other league. Not sure what the heck happened. He could still come around, but every time I see him he is giving up a long ball. You can sometimes get away with that when you are a guy like Schilling and your WHIP is low and the HR's are solo, but I don't think he's got that under control yet.

Code Cracker
ID: 300152013
Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 18:22

I think Bonser is just going through a rough period.

I did like his comments after his loss to mighty Kansas City:

"I've just go to do my job and not worry about what we're doing with the bats," Bonser said.

Maybe if he instead worried about what the other team was doing with their bats he might be more effective.

That said, I could offer a good young player like Kip Wells or Nate Robertson for him, :-p

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Wed, Aug 15, 2007, 15:44

well this is no good for several of us...
August 15th, 2007
This year, under a new baseball rule, draft picks have until Wednesday at midnight ET to agree on deals. After that, they are not eligible to sign.

Among the first-round picks who have yet to sign are No. 1 overall selection David Price, a left-handed pitcher taken by the Devil Rays. Infielder Mike Moustakas, the No. 2 overall choice by the Royals, and infielder Josh Vitters, taken No. 3 overall by the Cubs, also are unsigned. Switch-hitting catcher Matt Wieters, the No. 5 overall pick by the Orioles, also hasn't signed.

Left-hander Daniel Moskos, the No. 4 overall pick by the Pirates, is the highest draft selection to sign so far. Moskos was given a $2,475,000 signing bonus by Pittsburgh.

In contrast, the Tigers signed their top pick, 6-foot-5 right-hander Rick Porcello (selected 27th overall), to a four-year, $7.28 million deal Tuesday.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 15, 2007, 17:49

Posturing. If Det can sign Porcello, the other should be comparitively easy. If tehy all aren't signed, someone is making a big mistake--perhaps the player, but who knows.

I really like these deep Gurupie leagues if nothing else that it's hard to ever be comfortable. Well, Twarpy might be pretty cozy up there right now. Three of my top pitchers all went yesterday and got bombed--costing me many points. I lost 6 points in ERA/WHIP (would have been more without the RPs) and I had to bench two other RPs to get them in there and cost me more era/whip and a save. Combined with the losses of Ws, that was a pretty expensive endeavor.

It's been well-documented how Cards gained 11 points on me in the pentultimate day in season one to go up by a point. These huge swings can vault you or throw you in the tank big time--esp. late in the year when recovery time is short. As always, it's going to be a wild finish--well at least for the also-rans.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Wed, Aug 15, 2007, 18:00

The Rays have reportedly signed first overall pick David Price to a six-year contract worth $8.5 million.

The value of the deal should increase, depending on when Price reaches the majors. It's nice to see the Rays step up to the plate and get a deal done. Now let's just see if the Royals and Orioles do the same.
Source: Tampa Tribune

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 09:51

hey guys... thanks for not waiting too long.
Good lord. I think everyone signed at least

Kansas City Royals: The Royals agreed to a contract with Mike Moustakas, the No. 2 overall pick in this year's draft, 11 minutes before the midnight deadline Wednesday.
Moustakas gets a $4 million signing bonus.
A Royals spokesman told The Associated Press that agent Scott Boras called general manager Dayton Moore at 11:49 p.m. EDT to say the deal

Chicago Cubs: A few minutes before midnight on Wednesday night, Cubs announcers said during their telecast that the team had signed Josh Vitters, the third overall pick in June's draft.
He will receive a signing bonus worth approximately $3.2 million.

Baltimore Orioles: The Orioles and first-round draft pick Matt Wieters agreed to a contract Wednesday night with a $6 million signing bonus.

Arizona Diamondbacks: The Diamondbacks have agreed to terms with Jarrod Parker, their top selection in this June's draft.

San Francisco Giants: The Giants agreed to deals with both of their first-round picks before Wednesday's deadline, locking up 10th overall selection Madison Bumgarner and 29th pick Wendell Fairley.

Seattle Mariners: The Mariners have agreed to terms with Philippe Aumont, their top selection in this year's draft.

New York Yankees: After an afternoon impasse in negotiations with first round pick Andrew Brackman, the Yankees agreed to a major league contract with the 6-foot-10 pitcher.

Florida Marlins: The Marlins agreed to terms with first-round draft pick Matt Dominguez hours before the deadline.
Dominguez, a third baseman from Chatsworth High School near Los Angeles, was the 12th overall choice in the June draft. He gets a $1.8 million signing bonus.

beastiemiked
ID: 65112917
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 22:36

Got the plaque for hoops and baseball. Will take some pics and send to Ref so he can get them up on the website.

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 23:30

Glad you got it bmd. Time was running out for us to get together so I thought I better go ahead and just mail it to you. Would still like to get together for a game although tickets are pretty hard to find now except on stub hub or something.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 15:38

bmd, cool. I think the baseball one is already up. Just need the hoops one.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 13:07

Just a note that my lineup is incomplete today because I was interrupted in the midst of a transaction. I was moving Beltran (not playing) out in favour of Willingham but got distracted before I could finish.

Toral

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 13:25

Toral - Actually your lineup for today is valid since the lineups are frozen 30 minutes prior to the game. You moved Beltran out at 1:05 which was past the freeze, so you do not have an incomplete lineup for today, unless I am missing something.

Toral
ID: 575542418
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 14:00

Ah! OK. I was sure that I was making changes for 08/20 when I started making them. When I came back I saw that the date had changed to 8/21. I must have changed Beltran's position before but not hit the set lineups button till after. My guess is that the Florida game started at 1:05?

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Aug 20, 2007, 15:36

correct

Slackjawed Yokel
Leader
ID: 052347519
Sun, Aug 26, 2007, 21:31

you guys can take Lincecum off of my prospect list - I gambled and lost - he is well above the limits.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, Aug 27, 2007, 01:53

done.

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 12:51

Ref/StL Cards - my prospect Ian Kennedy is getting called up. I successfully removed the * next to his name on my prospect roster, but I could not 'edit values' to give him a salary. I presume this is because he is still on waivers?!?

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 22:24

Species, you need more practice adding players. You've forgotten how to do it. If you can jump on AIM tonight we will talk you through it again.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 02:19

I went ahead and added a salary to him for you.

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 19:07

Can a Commish please add back a $1 salary to Andrew Miller, and send him back to the minors. He has career 74.1 IP, and 21 GP. Thanks.

I wish I had done this when he went on the DL, instead of waiting until now.

Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 19:30

Done.

Great One
ID: 201155199
Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 12:03

Trade Deadline tonight
I am looking to get something done and will be here all day to negotiate. What do you like? shoot me an email... need a good young bat for the stretch run and potential keeper? how about Wily Mo or Botts? need some steals? Lugo or Crisp available. I'd package Wells, Dontrelle... a good young arm on a winning team like Joe Saunders... high draft picks, prospect picks... looking for a high level SP or OF.

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 12:27

LOL, GO!

Glad you reminded me as I had forgotten and I'm sure others did too. This has been our least trade-active year ever and that's because Twarpy ran off and hid and left the rest of the league around to play for 2nd.

blackjackis21
ID: 227131712
Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 14:06

Ooh - I'll play. I have the following guys I'd like to keep for next year. In no particular order, but in (im)proper Species marketing fashion:

SP
Justin Verlander - 24 yr. old on pace for 17 W's, 3.75, 1.24 and 179 K's.

Matt Cain - 23 yr. old on pace for 8 W's, 3.53, 1.29, 165 K's.

Yovani Gallardo - 21 yr. old, crappy stats. Probably cheapest of anyone on my list, but good young talent.

Aaron Harang - 31 yr. old, on pace 17 W's, 3.50, 1.11, 211 K's.

RP
Mariano Rivera - old, Mariano Rivera.

Manual Corpas - 25 yr. old, 11 for 11 in save opp's. 2.09 ERA, 1.13 WHIP. Likely closer next yr. for Rockies?

OF
Gary Sheffield - old, on DL, but so far, 430 AB, 24HR, 20 SB, .383 OBP.

Eric Byrnes - 31 yr. old, on pace for 22 HR, 45 SB, .361 OBP

Nick Markakis - 24 yr. old, on pace for 18 HR, 19 SB, .356 OBP

2B
Dan Uggla - 27 yr. old, on pace for 32 HR, .324 OBP.

SS
Michael Young - 31 yr. old, crappy year but still a keeper SS.

3B
Josh Fields - 25 yr. old. 17HR's in 288 AB's. OBP stinks, but should play every day and be 3B/OF eligible next year.

Probably too expensive, but Joba Chamberlain could also be in the mix.

3 of these guys will have to go, so if any two or three of them are better than somebody's bottom two or three suspected keepers, let me know if you're interested. I supposed I'd be looking for a slugger with good OBP in return, depending on who was involved. As of today, I drop Gallardo, Fields, and Byrnes? I'm sure it's unlikely something gets done today, so I'll probably post something similar next Spring - I wish there was a race left this year! Congrats Twarpy.

Great One
ID: 201155199
Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 12:24

Very disappointed with the league and the lack of activity. Got a few constructive responses where we just weren't a match and thats fine... but I threw out at least a half dozen offers that weren't even looked at.

And I am not making this about me - NOBODY in the entire league makes a trade before the trade deadline? What, nobody wants to improve their team? Thats incredible.

Perm Dude
ID: 5381919
Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 12:27

Frankly, I had thought the trade deadline passed already--all my other leagues had the trade deadline of weeks ago. I can't speak for anyone else, but I stopped thinking about trades already!

And there was no way I'd try to throw together a trade offer on the last day, while doing football research.

Twarpy's huge lead probably has a little bit of a dampening effect as well.

R9
ID: 21721142
Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 17:16

I had no interest in improving my team for this year. As far as next year, I have way too many question marks with my keepers that will be resolved in the off-season. For example, will Gagne or Soriano be full-time closers? Having zero or two keeper-worthy closers makes a huge difference when forming my keeper list. How can I make a deal that will focus on improving my keepers when I don't know who I'm keeping yet?

Short of trading some marginal players for picks (which nobody had any interest in doing) I planned on being very quiet at the deadline. I doubt I was alone. It was a strategic choice, not a lack of effort or league interest.

Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 19:26

Twarpy is so far ahead. I figured that none of the managers battling for 2nd or 3rd would be interested in mortgaging the future, so I didn't even take the time to look at their teams.

100

Great One
ID: 201155199
Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 12:59

Twarpy ruining all the fun!

101

Slackjawed Yokel
Leader
ID: 052347519
Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 22:56

Commishes - I'd like to call up Ellsbury and waive Shawn Green.

Thanks in advance.

102

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 23:47

Done.

103

R9
ID: 21721142
Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 00:28

How 'bout that Rick Ankiel? Pretty sick how a guy I picked up on a lark is garnering keeper attention just one month later...

104

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 09:49

Cardinals outfielder Rick Ankiel reportedly received shipments of human growth hormone (HGH) in 2004 from a Florida pharmacy that was part of a national illegal drug-distribution operation. Ankiel, a former pitcher who returned to the majors this year after quitting baseball because of control problems, received the shipments of HGH before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005. MLB does not test for HGH, but a player who is known to have used or possessed HGH since then could receive a 50-game suspension.

105

Great One
Sustainer
ID: 053272014
Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 09:49

Well that puts a damper on things!

106

R9
ID: 21721142
Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 20:36

LOL so sick. What a horrible year for my players. Every piece of good news is countered by something 5x worse...

107

Kevin
ID: 11726149
Fri, Sep 07, 2007, 21:01

I'm in a league with weekly rosters, so 2-starts is obviously huge. So i started Esteban Loaiza who pitched on monday but for some reason hes not pitching saturday or sunday even though the dodgers also had a thursday game. Are certain pitchers getting bumped up in the rotation?

109

StLCards
Dude
ID: 31010716
Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 11:08

Billy Butler has gone over the threshold limits for a prospect while on my active roster and can no longer be sent back down so he is no longer a prospect. I have removed him from the prospect list.

110

Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 12:00

Time for a new thread...

Next thread

Forum: basePage 19305Subject: Gurupie 20 2007 Regular Season Discussion III

Forum: base
Page 19305
Subject: Gurupie 20 2007 Regular Season Discussion III