Buds Board Keepers League

I can see why, I know I'm abrasive.

I'm trying not to be and I had a decent run

Yup, and people need to realize, if we were in Lee's position we'd want it to be a 1st as well, and if we were in Billys spot we'd be pushing for a 2nd+3rd.

two sides to every story, i really dont care and dont have much of opinion on the matter (well i do, but it doesn't really mean much so i wont say it).

Fraser wroteCOLONEssentially by deciding to do the adjustment post-lottery, the CC sanctioned a potential undefined area within their own rules if a GP offending pick won the lottery. There is nowhere in the rules specifying what that means to resultant adjustment of the pick, or the penalties of the pick.

As I have pointed out the adjustment formula doesn't work post-lottery on a winning pick, so they already shot themselves in the foot there. It seems that its just been brushed under the rug and the OTT pick was just moved one spot as what was done in previous years ignoring the adjustment rule. But now we are in a complete grey area, and It doesn't make sense to look at the defined penalties within a rule we are already ignoring.

In the past penalties were decided individually by the CC on a case by case basis. We have already reverted to the old process this year it seems, so I suppose the most logical step would be to also revert to the CC making their own decision on this aspect of the case as well to close the chapter on this blunder.

I mean, I'd be fine if we all just want to skip over this and give me McDavid. No compensation or fines. We've already decided that Dallas was not responsible for missing GP, so why not?

Lee wroteCOLONI can see why, I know I'm abrasive.

I'm trying not to be and I had a decent run

league's more enjoyable when guys put their abrasive or lack of personality in their back pocket and just try to get a long. When you're on your dick period i just refuse to deal with you, when your over your period i find you pretty easy to deal with.

the same can be said for lots of us, i certainly act over abrasive myself at times.

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONI can see why, I know I'm abrasive.

I'm trying not to be and I had a decent run

league's more enjoyable when guys put their abrasive or lack of personality in their back pocket and just try to get a long. When you're on your dick period i just refuse to deal with you, when your over your period i find you pretty easy to deal with.

the same can be said for lots of us, i certainly act over abrasive myself at times.

I just don't think that would be possible, we've all been together for what.. 5+ years now?

Lee wroteCOLON

Fraser wroteCOLONEssentially by deciding to do the adjustment post-lottery, the CC sanctioned a potential undefined area within their own rules if a GP offending pick won the lottery. There is nowhere in the rules specifying what that means to resultant adjustment of the pick, or the penalties of the pick.

As I have pointed out the adjustment formula doesn't work post-lottery on a winning pick, so they already shot themselves in the foot there. It seems that its just been brushed under the rug and the OTT pick was just moved one spot as what was done in previous years ignoring the adjustment rule. But now we are in a complete grey area, and It doesn't make sense to look at the defined penalties within a rule we are already ignoring.

In the past penalties were decided individually by the CC on a case by case basis. We have already reverted to the old process this year it seems, so I suppose the most logical step would be to also revert to the CC making their own decision on this aspect of the case as well to close the chapter on this blunder.

I mean, I'd be fine if we all just want to skip over this and give me McDavid. No compensation or fines. We've already decided that Dallas was not responsible for missing GP, so why not?

You are misunderstanding me.

After the GP adjustment formula the Ottawa pick should have had roughly 20 points added to it in the standings. This would have moved the pick from 3rd to 4th this year. But if the standings were different around where the pick was situated it could have rolled back 2, 3 or 4 spots.

When the pick won the lottery. This adjustment can no longer be made in this formula. It has been ignored.

The set penalty of a 1st rounder bumping you down from 1st was set within this GP adjustment formula rule.

We aren;t following the formula by making the adjustment post-lottery. So why follow the punishment as defined by the formula we are ignoring?

Fraser wroteCOLONMik will be able to give a better explanation than this as its all purely speculation on my behalf. But I would think when Mik and whoever else on the CC set up the new rule surrounding set penalties for GP offenses, the penalties were set in breadths based on where a pick would land at the end of the season, and the possibility of the adjustment being made post-lottery to a lottery winning pick, either wasn't fully considered or wasn't the intention of the rule to apply in that specific rare scenario.

those guidelines were put together by me and Nick years ago. For whatever reasons it took yrs to get them implemented, so it's not like I can be 100% sure of what I remember here, but I can tell you that when it was finally approved no discussion about a post-lottery scenario was discussed, and if my memory serves me correctly, the scenario that unfolded was not considered yrs ago when putting together the 'sanctions'.

Then in the heat of the moment, it seems the CC made a rushed decision that didn't take this into consideration, and seemed to revert back to what had been done in previous seasons as "penalty after lottery and move back one spot for GP offenses

sort of.
people inside the CC were sure draft positions have always been adjusted post-lottery in previous yrs (I didn't remember tbh) so without any notice announcing a change for this year, at that point it seemed logical to apply it post lottery again. Keep in mind that if it was #4 placed NHL team winning the lottery and the pick was penalized before the lottery you would have had a team picking 1st overall thx to the penalization of the pick, which wouldn't look good either. So it could work both ways for that matter.
If for the future we move to before lottery penalization, we would obviously need to take away the compensation going to the team owning the lucky pick.



Lots of good pts made along the rest of this thread.

One thing that seems to be forgotten:
those announced are guidelines, so those were never supposed to be set-in-stone sanctions.. as openly said in the announcements, the full extent of application of such guidelines should be decided case by case by the CC, taking into consideration eventual arguments made by the offender (something that in this case I don't remember Billy doing.. like showing a record of his injuries pre-post deadline and of trades he made to make up for injuries).

haha so decide! Why is this taking so long?

Fraser wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLON

Fraser wroteCOLONEssentially by deciding to do the adjustment post-lottery, the CC sanctioned a potential undefined area within their own rules if a GP offending pick won the lottery. There is nowhere in the rules specifying what that means to resultant adjustment of the pick, or the penalties of the pick.

As I have pointed out the adjustment formula doesn't work post-lottery on a winning pick, so they already shot themselves in the foot there. It seems that its just been brushed under the rug and the OTT pick was just moved one spot as what was done in previous years ignoring the adjustment rule. But now we are in a complete grey area, and It doesn't make sense to look at the defined penalties within a rule we are already ignoring.

In the past penalties were decided individually by the CC on a case by case basis. We have already reverted to the old process this year it seems, so I suppose the most logical step would be to also revert to the CC making their own decision on this aspect of the case as well to close the chapter on this blunder.

I mean, I'd be fine if we all just want to skip over this and give me McDavid. No compensation or fines. We've already decided that Dallas was not responsible for missing GP, so why not?

You are misunderstanding me.

After the GP adjustment formula the Ottawa pick should have had roughly 20 points added to it in the standings. This would have moved the pick from 3rd to 4th this year. But if the standings were different around where the pick was situated it could have rolled back 2, 3 or 4 spots.

When the pick won the lottery. This adjustment can no longer be made in this formula. It has been ignored.

The set penalty of a 1st rounder bumping you down from 1st was set within this GP adjustment formula rule.

We aren;t following the formula by making the adjustment post-lottery. So why follow the punishment as defined by the formula we are ignoring?

No, I completely understand what you are saying and what you are implying.

Lee wroteCOLON

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONI can see why, I know I'm abrasive.

I'm trying not to be and I had a decent run

league's more enjoyable when guys put their abrasive or lack of personality in their back pocket and just try to get a long. When you're on your dick period i just refuse to deal with you, when your over your period i find you pretty easy to deal with.

the same can be said for lots of us, i certainly act over abrasive myself at times.

I just don't think that would be possible, we've all been together for what.. 5+ years now?

7 years for the 10 or so of us who were here from the start.

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLONhaha so decide! Why is this taking so long?

probably the fact CC is currently made of 2 instead of at least 4, and nor me or Chuck have been assessed the power to decide on our own, as far as I know.

So the first thing to complain about at this turn should be about determing a full CC as soon as p.

Shoalzie, Fraser and Matt Bryuns should be added to the CC

Fraser wroteCOLON It seems that its just been brushed under the rug and the OTT pick was just moved one spot as what was done in previous years ignoring the adjustment rule.

I don't think we ignored the new guidelines. iirc we used them to determine how many spots to drop the pick.

The fact it was applied post lottery is another matter, and you already pointed out it kind of clashes with how that number of spots is determined.

Fraser and Dave would be my choices.

Scott has already been in the CC.

A yearly turnover of 2 people in the CC would be a good idea.

As an example:

Mik and Chuck are the vets, Fraser and Dave come in. Teach them the ropes, etc.


Next year, Mik and Chuck would be replaced, Fraser and Dave teach the new guys.

It would prevent the CC from becoming stagnant, get some fresh blood and ideas in.

I can also see the downfall, Mik the the CC MVP at this point and has done some awesome work.

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLONShoalzie, Fraser and Matt Bryuns should be added to the CC

I think we are already close on who the names will be (one addition seems sure, the other one not yet), so probably no need to start publicly mulling over this again

kyuss wroteCOLON

Fraser wroteCOLON It seems that its just been brushed under the rug and the OTT pick was just moved one spot as what was done in previous years ignoring the adjustment rule.

I don't think we ignored the new guidelines. iirc we used them to determine how many spots to drop the pick.

The fact it was applied post lottery is another matter, and you already pointed out it kind of clashes with how that number of spots is determined.

I really don;t think that works well going forward. What if a pick in the 8-10 range wins the lottery with a GP offense. And would have been rolled back 4 spots due to close standings, wins the lottery and then does that mean it goes to 5? Or something else? Does it change if it wins the 2nd/3rd place lottery now? What does that now mean to compensation? Why shouldn't the pick have a chance at winning one of the top 3 lottery spots even at reduced odds?

As you can see i think that method arises a lot more potential problems than the pre-lottery alternative.

Fraser wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

Fraser wroteCOLON It seems that its just been brushed under the rug and the OTT pick was just moved one spot as what was done in previous years ignoring the adjustment rule.

I don't think we ignored the new guidelines. iirc we used them to determine how many spots to drop the pick.

The fact it was applied post lottery is another matter, and you already pointed out it kind of clashes with how that number of spots is determined.

I really don;t think that works well going forward...

I agree, for that matter

Bump

In discussion with Billy:

I don't think it's reasonable for them to fine you a 1st at this point, due to their inability to make a timely decision. With that said, under the stated rules I am still due a 1st. I think a logical conclusion would be for the CC to award me 31st overall and have you drop the 2nd and 3rd round picks and have them acknowledge that they dropped the ball and will try to be better moving forward.

Imo at this point this is the fairest option for both parties involved