Buds Board Keepers League

Kezia wroteCOLON

The Devil wroteCOLONI think people just need to let the CC do their job.. and when there's a ruling just live with it. It's not easy being in the CC..

So we should just ignore stuff from the CBA, that the CC put in place, and then choooses to ignore?

Man I can't wait to draft Nail with my waiver pick.

Dude.. quit acting like this. The CC is discussing what's going on now. I said let the CC do their job and live with it.

Kezia wroteCOLON

The Devil wroteCOLONI think people just need to let the CC do their job.. and when there's a ruling just live with it. It's not easy being in the CC..

So we should just ignore stuff from the CBA, that the CC put in place, and then choooses to ignore?

Man I can't wait to draft Nail with my waiver pick.

Lee man, stop acting as if the world is against you, it's not; you're interpretation of the CBA rule is different then the context it was written in. We are discussing your bitching and seeing what we can make of it.

We aren't talking about anything after 15, Anton. We are talking about what should be the 6/7th pick. Adding a player at that spot could really help my team, if not just the prospect pool.

Kezia wroteCOLON Man I can't wait to draft Nail with my waiver pick.

What's this in reference to?

facey wroteCOLON

Kezia wroteCOLON Man I can't wait to draft Nail with my waiver pick.

What's this in reference to?

A childish rant going against a rule that the CC put in place that I am choosing to ignore.

More to prove a point than actual intention.

What I'm trying to get at here is that by choosing to blatantly ignore rules put in place, what's to stop them from choosing to ignore other rules put in place..

How does that saying go...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

And you're not listening.

The rule can be read different ways, as it wasn't written thinking of all possibilities. It was intended for new GMs who inherited a team at seasons end (but prior to the waiver draft), and not for GMs who managed the team all year. You slid into a loop-hole, and are now trying to pry it open as wide as possible in a best case scenario as if you did have an option in managing your team to a bottom place finish. Now you weren't compensated last year, and we're discussing the timeline and what options we have there.

Kezia wroteCOLONWhat I'm trying to get at here is that by choosing to blatantly ignore rules put in place, what's to stop them from choosing to ignore other rules put in place..

How does that saying go...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

you cant be serious! HAHAHAHAHA

Kezia wroteCOLON

The Devil wroteCOLONI think people just need to let the CC do their job.. and when there's a ruling just live with it. It's not easy being in the CC..

So we should just ignore stuff from the CBA, that the CC put in place, and then choooses to ignore?

Lee, there is an obvious problem with the CBA right now. It is out of date in many parts, and as anyone may have noticed, it doesn't get updated once new resolutions are reached. You might think this doesn't affect your particular argument, but actually it does, as unfortunately CBA right now is often contradicted by league operations.. so this wouldn't be anything new. Any rule out of date or decided out of the current context could be exposed to this..

hopefully some day we will have a more detailed and up to date CBA. That would save everyone from most troubles.

Sorry our CBA isn't bullet proof man.. this is a league with 30 normal guys who just love hockey. We're going to have scenarios like this happen.. but we'll get the CBA in order and make it more black and white.

maybe if we all pool our money together we can pay a real lawyer to write it

facey wroteCOLONAnd you're not listening.

The rule can be read different ways, as it wasn't written thinking of all possibilities. It was intended for new GMs who inherited a team at seasons end (but prior to the waiver draft), and not for GMs who managed the team all year. You slid into a loop-hole, and are now trying to pry it open as wide as possible in a best case scenario as if you did have an option in managing your team to a bottom place finish. Now you weren't compensated last year, and we're discussing the timeline and what options we have there.

Any new GM who takes over a team in the bottom twelve of the league will receive corresponding picks in the waiver draft.

Seems rather cut and dry to me. Someone dropped the ball for the other teams that didn't get their compensation.

I said earlier. If you (CC) decide that Paul and I don't get the compensation picks, but other teams like Calgary and Dallas do, no one should receive compensation picks from this point forward. That is not following the rules that you, the CC, put in place. Arbitrarily deciding who gets what is the issue here.

No Lee, failing to understand the problem isn't going to make your cause any more likely succeed.

Kezia wroteCOLONHow does that saying go...

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yeah...That's why you didn't speak out