wakelawyer

Members
  • Content count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About wakelawyer

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday March 17

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Miami Dolphins

Recent Profile Visitors

2,533 profile views
  1. Thank you -- a lot. This saves me a ton of time.
  2. Bump ... and a question? Is there a way to sync all of your leagues with one click? There used to be a sync all leagues link but now it looks like you have to sync them individually.
  3. Now here's your chance to do the right thing. Go back and undo the trade, apologize to the league, put the voting back in place for this year, and let everyone know that you would like to revisit the voting issue next year. If you can't do that, you should really consider stepping down as commish ASAP.
  4. Poetic justice at its finest. You set up a league which allows owners to vote and you get bit in the #### because owners voted down your deal. You made your bed, now lie in it.
  5. Defensive scoring tends to be erratic but they can score a lot of points in a given week. So I wanted to have several shots at a big week. I picked a handful of defenses that I thought had some upside potential -- on a per game basis. Rostering several defenses also limited what I could spend on a defense so I couldn't go with the higher ones. But I didn't see the value in going with the lower ones -- I'd rather pay an extra dollar or two to get one that I liked.
  6. Sure. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2017/107767.php Not much impressive there but got lucky this week.
  7. I'm usually out of this thing by week 4 or 5 but had my best week this week -- checking in at 7th overall! Just in time to be knocked out next week I'm sure.
  8. I don't agree with this. TROs to preserve the status quo are preferred. And that's what is at stake here. And, by their very nature, they are limited in duration. As for the judge, I disagree with the comments that this judge will just be a caretaker. Judge's take their job seriously. And all judges should be able to handle all cases. Given that this case just started, Crotty shouldn't be holding back anything. He'll handle it like his case. At best, if he thinks that there is any concern or that it's a really close call, he may grant the TRO, order additional briefing and bring the parties back next week. By that time Crotty and Failla would decide who would handle the hearing, with Failla likely taking over.
  9. It's Judge Failla's case and Crotty is only handling it because a decision is required immediately. Some would argue that Crotty should basically safeguard the case and not do anything to limit what Failla can do. That hasn't been my experience. I would imagine that Crotty is handling it as he would handle his own case. As for the strength of his "vote," his ruling will stand until another Court overturns it or reconsiders it. And if someone were to go to Failla next week and ask her to reconsider the Crotty ruling, it is very likely that Failla would defer to Crotty on that application because it is his order that would be being challenged.
  10. I wouldn't read too much into that. I didn't see the argument and haven't read much about it. But I imagine that the NFL kept hammering on that decision and at some point, Judge Crotty may not have had instant recall of all aspects. So he'd want to go back and review it, especially if he rules in Zeke's favor. Imagine the outrage if he (and again, I didn't see the hearing) said he wasn't aware of a particular point and didn't read the decision again and ruled in Zeke's favor. By reading the decision he can credibly say that he read it, considered it, and rejected it -- at least in the context of the TRO hearing.
  11. I'd put the odds at about 80% an injunction gets entered, 20% that it does not. Edit - injunction -- i.e. the suspension is put on hold.
  12. The money involved should be irrelevant. The question is usually how quickly does the Court need to act to prevent harm that cannot be reversed and, to some extent, how quickly did you act in bringing it to the Court's attention. And it may be impacted by how long the other side wants/needs to be able to respond. So something could be filed on Monday but the other side will ask for a day to file a brief, submit a certification, or even just travel to be able to appear in Court. Here, the Court's real deadline is the end of the week. If it rules by Saturday, Zeke can play on Sunday. The request for a ruling today is simply to make things easier on Zeke and the team. But no action is required today. Contrast that to a situation where parents are in a custodial fight and the father has airline tickets to fly him and the children out of the Country at 4:00 today. I can guarantee you that the Court will act immediately, at least on a temporary basis, before that deadline passes. On the flip side, if you sue your neighbor to prevent them from discharging water from their gutters onto your land, the Court may not hold a hearing for 30, 60, or even 90 days because there is no immediate irreversible and irreparable harm.
  13. It's almost as if people forget that Kaep was a backup QB when this whole thing started. It's not like he was Aaron Rodgers and decided to kneel. This is no different than Blaine Gabbert deciding to go to the middle of the field after each game and hold up a Blue Lives Matter sign. At some point the distraction outweighs the benefit to the team.
  14. Nothing special about the NFL. Courts usually try to schedule hearings for injunctive relief fairly quickly.
  15. I haven't looked at the Brady decision but your recollection could be correct. I think that the issue is that arbitration decisions will be respected -- even if wrong -- provided there is nothing significantly flawed in the process. So, for Brady, the Court upheld the decision. Here, the Texas Court took quite a few digs at the process, which could lead one to believe that a Court could rule that the process was flawed and thus unworthy of being upheld. However, even in that case, it would likely just go back to the NFL for another hearing. Zeke could very well lose but I think that he could present an argument that there's a non-zero chance that he wins. In that case, notwithstanding strong language in the applicable standard about a reasonable likelihood of success, the Court may focus on relative harms and not want to disturb the status quo until the matter can be fully developed.