Buds Board Keepers League

we had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

And what was the outcome?

Also can I request a CC discussion regarding the Chicago pick? I don't think it was an announcement but rather a post or two a while back regarding no penalty since he took over midseason provided he did not lessen his chances of meeting the GP mark, which as shown previously was not the case. I just want to ensure the posted rules are followed in this case since I don't see anything regarding new ownership midseason altering penalties and compensation and as we learned with Mik, they're followed as written and posted.

when you've only had 2 1st round picks in 9 years...








have at it, ladies

Why do u care if he gets punished? U get a compensation pick regardless.

foofnik wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

And what was the outcome?

Also can I request a CC discussion regarding the Chicago pick? I don't think it was an announcement but rather a post or two a while back regarding no penalty since he took over midseason provided he did not lessen his chances of meeting the GP mark, which as shown previously was not the case. I just want to ensure the posted rules are followed in this case since I don't see anything regarding new ownership midseason altering penalties and compensation and as we learned with Mik, they're followed as written and posted.

the outcome was this:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12062&start=100#p242728

foofnik wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

And what was the outcome?

Also can I request a CC discussion regarding the Chicago pick? I don't think it was an announcement but rather a post or two a while back regarding no penalty since he took over midseason provided he did not lessen his chances of meeting the GP mark, which as shown previously was not the case. I just want to ensure the posted rules are followed in this case since I don't see anything regarding new ownership midseason altering penalties and compensation and as we learned with Mik, they're followed as written and posted.

I mean, the GP mark is 850 and I'm at 814 as of Friday morning... I'll be pretty dam close to meeting the minimum and that's with a roster full of injury-prone players (Ladd, Gaborik. Abdelkader, etc.).

I traded away GP regulars Reilly, Desharnais, Lovejoy and brought back Sustr and O'Gara who are now both playing, had even Guhle play in a few games, and now have Fehr as a full-timer (albeit now injured). I also brought in Bernier who really gave me huge goaltending stats for a good stretch.

I think the balance is probably there. I gave up some players GP but increase my goalies GP quite a bit.

koomzzz wroteCOLONi thought i understood this rule until i read these posts, I have no idea what's going on anymore.

Same

we had talked about leeway for injuries, but it didn't really go anywhere.

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had talked about leeway for injuries, but it didn't really go anywhere.

Way to go, Mik!

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

foofnik wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

And what was the outcome?

Also can I request a CC discussion regarding the Chicago pick? I don't think it was an announcement but rather a post or two a while back regarding no penalty since he took over midseason provided he did not lessen his chances of meeting the GP mark, which as shown previously was not the case. I just want to ensure the posted rules are followed in this case since I don't see anything regarding new ownership midseason altering penalties and compensation and as we learned with Mik, they're followed as written and posted.

I mean, the GP mark is 850 and I'm at 814 as of Friday morning... I'll be pretty dam close to meeting the minimum and that's with a roster full of injury-prone players (Ladd, Gaborik. Abdelkader, etc.).

I traded away GP regulars Reilly, Desharnais, Lovejoy and brought back Sustr and O'Gara who are now both playing, had even Guhle play in a few games, and now have Fehr as a full-timer (albeit now injured). I also brought in Bernier who really gave me huge goaltending stats for a good stretch.

I think the balance is probably there. I gave up some players GP but increase my goalies GP quite a bit.

Well, that's not really saying much. You could've dressed 13 out of 18 healthy skaters all year and made it. The 850 threshold is a joke.

Tony wroteCOLONwhen you've only had 2 1st round picks in 9 years...








have at it, ladies

Kind of paints the picture doesn't it? Haha.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

foofnik wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

And what was the outcome?

Also can I request a CC discussion regarding the Chicago pick? I don't think it was an announcement but rather a post or two a while back regarding no penalty since he took over midseason provided he did not lessen his chances of meeting the GP mark, which as shown previously was not the case. I just want to ensure the posted rules are followed in this case since I don't see anything regarding new ownership midseason altering penalties and compensation and as we learned with Mik, they're followed as written and posted.

I mean, the GP mark is 850 and I'm at 814 as of Friday morning... I'll be pretty dam close to meeting the minimum and that's with a roster full of injury-prone players (Ladd, Gaborik. Abdelkader, etc.).

I traded away GP regulars Reilly, Desharnais, Lovejoy and brought back Sustr and O'Gara who are now both playing, had even Guhle play in a few games, and now have Fehr as a full-timer (albeit now injured). I also brought in Bernier who really gave me huge goaltending stats for a good stretch.

I think the balance is probably there. I gave up some players GP but increase my goalies GP quite a bit.

Well, that's not really saying much. You could've dressed 13 out of 18 healthy skaters all year and made it. The 850 threshold is a joke.

Well that's pretty much what I was given... though had a good chunk of injuries, traded some away, acquired some, etc. I also mis-calculated the games played as I assumed they would get their 82 games/matchups w/e you guys call it BEFORE the playoffs. Chalk that up to a rookie mistake.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON Kind of paints the picture doesn't it? Haha.

Matthew wroteCOLONWhy do u care if he gets punished? U get a compensation pick regardless.

Where does it say that? I read it as if it's moved 2 or less he owes me pick(s). If it's moved 3 or more spots then I get a compensatory pick on top of previous owed pick(s). If a lottery win, then it's all moot and nothing happens. And I'll also point out this probably should be updated since this was when there was only a single lottery draw, not 3 draws, but that's something for the summer and next year.

From the CBA:
- If the pick is moved 2 or less spots:
and the pick is #1, a first round selection in this same draft
and the pick is #2-5, a 2nd and a 3rd round selection (this draft year or next)
and the pick is 6+, a 2nd round selection
if the offending GM doesn't own the compensatory picks he will have to acquire them on the market

- If the pick is moved more then 2 spots:
and the pick is #1-5, the league will also compensate the GM with a pick between the 1st and 2nd round (30b)
and the pick is 6+, the league will also compensate the GM with a pick between the 2nd and 3rd round (60b)

- if the lowered first round pick wins one of the three lottery draws and as a result the team that traded for that pick does not get hurt in the final draft order by the fact the pre-lottery positioning of the acquired pick was lowered, its owner is not due any of the aforementioned compensations. The offending GM has those picks dropped instead [4]

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

foofnik wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

And what was the outcome?

Also can I request a CC discussion regarding the Chicago pick? I don't think it was an announcement but rather a post or two a while back regarding no penalty since he took over midseason provided he did not lessen his chances of meeting the GP mark, which as shown previously was not the case. I just want to ensure the posted rules are followed in this case since I don't see anything regarding new ownership midseason altering penalties and compensation and as we learned with Mik, they're followed as written and posted.

I mean, the GP mark is 850 and I'm at 814 as of Friday morning... I'll be pretty dam close to meeting the minimum and that's with a roster full of injury-prone players (Ladd, Gaborik. Abdelkader, etc.).

I traded away GP regulars Reilly, Desharnais, Lovejoy and brought back Sustr and O'Gara who are now both playing, had even Guhle play in a few games, and now have Fehr as a full-timer (albeit now injured). I also brought in Bernier who really gave me huge goaltending stats for a good stretch.

I think the balance is probably there. I gave up some players GP but increase my goalies GP quite a bit.

You might end up close, but the mark is way low already and you still failed to reach it. It's no one else's fault you are rostering many injury prone players, that's a non-factor.

I don't count Lovejoy for Sustr as it happened with 1 week left and was neutral anyway. DD and Reilly in January for a goalie and futures is GP very negative (goalies don't count towards this and you already had a workhorse in Rinne anyway). O'Gara has played 4 games due to a trade to NYR 2 months after you acquired him, that's luck, not a GP positive move. Guhle played like 2 games too, again, not GP positive. Fehr you owned from before the season (I traded him to your roster actually with the previous GM before roster submission)

Actually the roster is not my fault either... I inherited it.

If I am to constantly worry about GP, I would never be able to trade away any players in hopes of rebuilding my depth (of which is non-existent). This year, I acquired a good amount of young players that could potentially be playing next year - contributing much more to my GP than the ones I gave up. I call that a step in the right direction - something a keeper league should not be punishing.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLONActually the roster is not my fault either... I inherited it.

If I am to constantly worry about GP, I would never be able to trade away any players in hopes of rebuilding my depth (of which is non-existent). This year, I acquired a good amount of young players that could potentially be playing next year - contributing much more to my GP than the ones I gave up. I call that a step in the right direction - something a keeper league should not be punishing.

I'm not arguing you didn't make your team better in the long term, but again, the GP threshold is to set a minimum acceptable roster. Without one a team could dress an entire roster of plugs to meet the 15 skater minimum, accrue maybe 200 GP the entire season, and go 0-82 to lock up the bottom spot. But that would be detrimental to the league as a whole and why a threshold is there. And with no penalty, there is no incentive to reach the threshold. So here we are.

foofnik wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONWhy do u care if he gets punished? U get a compensation pick regardless.

Where does it say that? I read it as if it's moved 2 or less he owes me pick(s). If it's moved 3 or more spots then I get a compensatory pick on top of previous owed pick(s). If a lottery win, then it's all moot and nothing happens. And I'll also point out this probably should be updated since this was when there was only a single lottery draw, not 3 draws, but that's something for the summer and next year.

From the CBA:
- If the pick is moved 2 or less spots:
and the pick is #1, a first round selection in this same draft
and the pick is #2-5, a 2nd and a 3rd round selection (this draft year or next)
and the pick is 6+, a 2nd round selection
if the offending GM doesn't own the compensatory picks he will have to acquire them on the market

- If the pick is moved more then 2 spots:
and the pick is #1-5, the league will also compensate the GM with a pick between the 1st and 2nd round (30b)
and the pick is 6+, the league will also compensate the GM with a pick between the 2nd and 3rd round (60b)

- if the lowered first round pick wins one of the three lottery draws and as a result the team that traded for that pick does not get hurt in the final draft order by the fact the pre-lottery positioning of the acquired pick was lowered, its owner is not due any of the aforementioned compensations. The offending GM has those picks dropped instead [4]

You asked what would be happening if we were allowing him to miss gp and we told you that you wiuld be given a sandwich pick by the league for whatever pick it is u miss out on for dahawk not being fined.

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

which suggests before we edit anything on the matter we would have to go back and read that stuff, to see which were the reasons behind this regulation. I remember it took quite a lot of effort to get to that compromise, and it wasn't there before a few years into the league's existence (it was actually not a rule that was in place early on, at least not in that form), so it's not like it wasn't based on previous experience.

Personally I didn't like giving compensatory picks to the pick owner, but other CC members brought reasons for it (I remember Nick was definitely advocating for that)

kyuss wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONwe had like a 15 page discussion in CC on this, lol

which suggests before we edit anything on the matter we would have to go back and read that stuff, to see which were the reasons behind this regulation. I remember it took quite a lot of effort to get to that compromise, and it wasn't there before a few years into the league's existence (it was actually not a rule that was in place early on, at least not in that form), so it's not like it wasn't based on previous experience.

Personally I didn't like giving compensatory picks to the pick owner, but other CC members brought reasons for it (I remember Nick was definitely advocating for that)

Oh the fucking irony in that