Buds Board Keepers League

SuperMario wroteCOLON

mr. bruin wroteCOLONSo theres a rule against max games played and a rule that you must dress a goalie? Isnt that a setup for conflict?

No conflict unless you end up dressing 2 starters lol. In Mik's case Bob + Bryz.

Allowing teams to not dress a goalie is opening up a huge can of worms. What if teams abuse it (i.e. not dress goalies to impact the standings/playoff matchups?)

Also, in the NHL - which game can happen without a goalie in net lol?

Definitely an antitrust issue.

if that'd allow i would have not dressed luongo and pick 1st getting JT .. don't have to end up trading for him

Lets make a rule that you must own goalie tandems....Solves everything ...

mr. bruin wroteCOLONLets make a rule that you must own goalie tandems....Solves everything ...

you mean goalie tandems only?

that would basically mean teams could only draft goalies of those teams.. cause otherwise they would be FORCED to deal them without any market value to the BBKL GM who has their teams' tandem as soon as they would become useful NHLers..

drafting goalies would become useless.

Lol, i know, it was a stupid comment that was meant as a joke. Not possible.

btw, if the current rule was something like:
"you're supposed to dress your best NHL G option each week, and you'll get fined if caught blatantly doing otherwise"

AND

the limit was not as strict as 48 (82), then i think it should work.


If you have a 48 limit, even owning only a team system might put you into trouble:
suppose you dress your pair on a week late in the season... the backup is traded on Tuesday and plays 3 games that week. You're probably going to finish above the limit as you'll be forced to dress your best G option in the last week(s).

Or suppose i have more goalies than 1 system. Under the above new rule, i will only dress my system G's and bench the other(s) out of fear of exceeding the max. Eventually i trade the benched guy.. soon after my G starter goes down to injury and his NHL team trade for another starter.. if it's before the deadline it FORCES me to make a bad deal to reach minimum gp for G, if it's after the dealine i'm screwed for gp minimum because i couldn't use all my G's when i had them healthy..

you can probably find more cases where the 48 strict limit may create retarded situations.

If there was some kind of room (like 90 over a 82 season?), i think the rule "you're supposed to dress your best NHL G option each week, and you'll get fined if caught blatantly doing otherwise" would probably work without bringing problems.

If we want to look at changing goalie GP rigidity we can do so in the off season, along with the other things we need to consider.

I think the only thing that needs changing is getting rid of an upper limit for goalie gp. When I owned Price and Schneider I ran into the same issues. I benched Schneider one week as a result but the CC forced Schneider back into my lineup anyway.

Mike wroteCOLONIf we want to look at changing goalie GP rigidity we can do so in the off season, along with the other things we need to consider.

Yup - and that change cannot be applied retroactivey. Mik you messed up by playing 2 starters (you didn't get "screwed") - you must still remain competitive and ice a proper roster. If that ends up in you receiving penalties, then so be it - it is deserved for playing 2 starters.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

Mike wroteCOLONIf we want to look at changing goalie GP rigidity we can do so in the off season, along with the other things we need to consider.

Yup - and that change cannot be applied retroactivey. Mik you messed up by playing 2 starters (you didn't get "screwed") - you must still remain competitive and ice a proper roster. If that ends up in you receiving penalties, then so be it - it is deserved for playing 2 starters.

The problem isn't about not being competitive, it's about not dressing one goalie. Dress a 4th stringer for all I care.

BTW we do have a few things on the "docket" for this summer, for those interested:

- GGP limits
- Centre/wing eligibility
- Fundemental W-L-T structure (idea: changing from 16 wins/losses a week to one - obviously this is a huge change, we would need a league-wide majority to do so)

I'm sure there are others I'm omitting. Anyway, Let's enjoy our playoffs... these things will be addressed in the off season.

Mike wroteCOLONBTW we do have a few things on the "docket" for this summer, for those interested:

- GGP limits
- Centre/wing eligibility
- Fundemental W-L-T structure (idea: changing from 16 wins/losses a week to one - obviously this is a huge change, we would need a league-wide majority to do so)

I'm sure there are others I'm omitting. Anyway, Let's enjoy our playoffs... these things will be addressed in the off season.

Yep - our focus for the next 4 weeks should be on the goal of the BBKL - winning the championship + the associated race in the final weeks. Hell there are still teams jockeying for a playoff spot this week! Others are watching their draft picks fall in line, however the new lottery will be fun

We are trying to get our hands on the new CBA- proper understanding of some of the new cap rules are needed, and we'll talk about implementation. Including $ trades, $ in minors, a re-visit our categories, and update our new GM handbook and regulations. Having a clean, clear, searchable CBA is a goal, but I'm sure everyone can understand the shit storm the new CBA + shortened season was - including a focus on making sure OUR GMs were here and doing their due diligence.

As Mike said, it's not changing today or for this season - we're doing very well and have the best fantasy league I've still ever heard of. We all likely demolish other fantasy leagues we're in - this isn't for the weak minded or half-ass committed GMs this is for the big shots

SuperMario wroteCOLON Mik you messed up by playing 2 starters (you didn't get "screwed") - you must still remain competitive and ice a proper roster. If that ends up in you receiving penalties, then so be it - it is deserved for playing 2 starters.

first off:
- it was not that clear which was the starter between Bobrovsky and Mason, and i didn't expect Bryz to play basically each and every game
- i had to dress 2 goalies, i didn't want to waive Bob or Mason
- dressing Leighton as backup was not my favourite option given his struggles that could waste week numbers (were wasted anyway most times, but still..)

i know you'll probably have an answer for all of these, but the point is different:
teams didn't dress G's in the past and i don't think they were ever fined.
So I thought it was perfectly legit and i could use that option later on if needed to be compliant with the limit.
The outdated CBA rule doesn't mean much when it states:

4-3-4 : Teams must have either one (1) or two (2) goalies; if one (1) goalie is dressed you may NOT place a skater in the designated goalie roster spot.

as you could dress a minor league G there and be fine... (or maybe even a pick like happened in the past).. despite the fact it would be the exact same thing: no games for goalies.
And that rule has been broken before, so i thought its purpose was to clarify you couldn't dress a skater to fill the G open spot.

This time around i brought up the fact i had to play without G and it happened to conflict with your Presidents Trophy dreams.