LBJackal wrote:josebach wrote:LBJackal wrote:Apex wrote:Not to belabor the point, but can you give me an example of a roster move (other than churning players) that would be intended strictly to hamper the play of another owner? If not, then what would you consider the intent of that rule?
In a H2H league, some guy beats you by picking up lots of SP's, and after you're eliminated you churn pitchers so he loses. No gain to you, only harm to him.
Ok, the rule we're arguing is "No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners."
By your logic, your explanation is wrong. By hurting one team, aren't you also helping the team that's playing them? Isn't helping the team that's playing them a purpose?
Yep, it's a purpose - to help somebody elses team. Unfortunately, that breaks rule #1, "All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league." So I'm still right
Churning pitchers so they hit waivers breaks none of the rules if your intent is to help your own team.
We're not talking about rule #1. What is the intent of the rule "No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners." if it's not to stop churning? Somebody's dodging the question.