Garbage thread

[Matthew]

Agree 100% with Lee, if Mik did the same thing three weeks ago it would be the exact scenario Lee had his wrists slapped for and the rules shouldn't change for the playoffs.

One has an intent to lose. One has an intent to win. That is the difference in the scenario.

[Lee]

Not sure what that has to do with playing a sub optimal line up. He has better goalies in his system. He is not playing his best line up, which is the intent of the rule.

Thus, I'm not sure how he isn't breaking the very rule he helped create. Is it because he is in the play offs?

Should we have different sets of rules for playoff and non play off teams? Different interpretations of existing rules for playoff and non playoff?

Darling has the best stats of all hi goalies actually, but past that, and with all due respect, you are being idiotic. His intent is to win. Your intent is to lose and corrupt a league where the intent of the league is to win. This corrupts the league when you begin to affect the standings of other teams.

I'm sure you are a rational guy, so you can't actually believe what you are arguing.

I was exploiting a loop hole that has since been closed and now is being broken by a member of the CC.

Believing what I am saying and pointing out the flaws in the system are 2 different things. I couldn't care less about his match up, I am simply pointing out they hypocrisy of it all.

[Lee]

Agree 100% with Lee, if Mik did the same thing three weeks ago it would be the exact scenario Lee had his wrists slapped for and the rules shouldn't change for the playoffs.

One has an intent to lose. One has an intent to win. That is the difference in the scenario.

So you are okay with breaking the rules as long as winning is the end goal? I was attempting to win the lottery. Does that not count? I met GP. There was no rule saying I could not dress a sub optimal lineup.

[Matthew]

Agree 100% with Lee, if Mik did the same thing three weeks ago it would be the exact scenario Lee had his wrists slapped for and the rules shouldn't change for the playoffs.

One has an intent to lose. One has an intent to win. That is the difference in the scenario.

So you are okay with breaking the rules as long as winning is the end goal? I was attempting to win the lottery. Does that not count? I met GP. There was no rule saying I could not dress a sub optimal lineup.

Your logic is so dumb. If he is winning then he isn't breaking the rule, is he. If a modification to his lineup helps him win, then that would be his best lineup.

The main issue with you modifying your lineup to intentionally lose is that you create a perverse environment for teams fighting for a playoff spot by gifting points to some of the teams.

The example i used before: Imagine you are 8th in the east next season and Carolina is 9th. You have a significant lead on Carolina. However, I, Anaheim, have fulfilled my games played requirement, and would like a better Draft choice position and am already out of the playoffs. Therefore, I dress Zero NHL Roster Players. Is that fair to you, Lee? No, it isnt. It creates a Perverse environment in our league.

I am not going to bother replying to this discussion again, because your argument is essentially "I would like to cheat, and I am going to try and twist the rules to do so."

Look at Darling's stats. His GAA & SV% are Elite.

[Lee]

In fact, looking at the rules now. I didn't actually break any rules. I still had Khudo ( or Cam.. can't remember which) dressed at that time that I called up Drew McIntyre and was led to believe that I had to have two active NHL goalies dressed at all times.

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9761
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.

Now, the question is wether this is a new addenum to the CBA since I apparently broke a non existant rule.

By the same token, since I was led to believe that I NEEDED to have 2 goalies dressed, maybe I would be well withing my rights to demand compensation for forcefully dressing a lineup that was detrimental to my goals while still playing within the rules of the league. Nor did it state that they had to be NHL goalies, for that matter. I'm not going to because I really don't care. Again, pointing out the hypocrisy.

You're off your rocker if you think Scott Darling is a better goalie than Bobrovsky.

[Lee]

I am not going to bother replying to this discussion again, because your argument is essentially "I would like to cheat, and I am going to try and twist the rules to do so."

You really don't understand my position if you think I break any rule in this league. There are loop holes to be found, I find them. I do what I must to benefit my team. Sorry that I know how to find loop holes better than you do :\

[Matthew]

You really don't understand my position if you think I break any rule in this league. There are loop holes to be found, I find them. I do what I must to benefit my team. Sorry that I know how to find loop holes better than you do :\

This sounds so pathetic to me. How about you just build a good team and quit trying to cheat?

[Lee]

With that said, another Gino for Stafford.

11 points now in his last 10 games and a hearty HAHA to those who felt Stafford wasn't good enough for your team at a very minimal cost.

[Lee]

You really don't understand my position if you think I break any rule in this league. There are loop holes to be found, I find them. I do what I must to benefit my team. Sorry that I know how to find loop holes better than you do :\

This sounds so pathetic to me. How about you just build a good team and quit trying to cheat.

How am I cheating if I don't break any rules? If anything, acuse me of being pedantic, not of cheating.

[Matthew]

You really don't understand my position if you think I break any rule in this league. There are loop holes to be found, I find them. I do what I must to benefit my team. Sorry that I know how to find loop holes better than you do :\

This sounds so pathetic to me. How about you just build a good team and quit trying to cheat.

How am I cheating if I don't break any rules? If anything, acuse me of being pedantic, not of cheating.

Pedantic to help yourself cheat.

[Lee]

Please. Show me which existing rules I have broken. I will quit the league on the spot.

[Matthew]

Please. Show me which existing rules I have broken. I will quit the league on the spot.

Given what we have been experiencing in this league in the past, the CC have added a new general rule to prevent unfair tanking, something that not only affects the final draft order, but also alter the rest of the standings as a result of disguised matchups:

Blatant tanking on purpose is not allowed. Not even after reaching gp minimums.
This means when a GM is caught blatantly dressing a worse lineup* than the one available, the league can fix the lineup immediately (this to save the integrity of the matchup and not giving up free pts to the opponent, hence screwing our standings as a result) and apply sanctions to the offending GM.
If the 'irregular' lineup is only detected afterwards, along with appplying sanctions, the advantage earned by dressing a bad lineup on purpose will be taken away in the final standings by adding the points of the stats the offending GM lost in the affected matchup.

* the accused GM will have the chance to explain his lineup decisions if he disagrees with the eventual CC intervention, but the CC will obviously have the final word.

As an example, this means Lee last season would have only got sanctions and no advantages in (lowering) his position in the standings by not dressing his goalies once he reached the GP minimum for G.

What he just did last week (scratching Cam Ward) is another example of a situation where this new regulation can be applied.

And before you say "This wasn't a rule when I was accused of breaking the rules", that is not part of what you said above. You said "existing" in the present tense: I am just being pedantic, afterall. It's a shame we no longer have 30 GM's. Sorry Guys.

[Lee]

So you are an idiot then. It was not a rule. I found a loop hole. It was closed and a rule created.

[Matthew]

So you are an idiot then. It was not a rule. I found a loop hole. It was closed and a rule created.

Sorry, Lee. I dont converse with non league members on this board.

If your parents had never told you to not kill a man, would you use that as an excuse to kill a man? sometimes common sense and integrity are a real thing.

[Fraser]

Come on Lee. The rule that you are trying to say applies to both your and Mik's situation was put in place to discourage unrealistic tanking in the BBKL, simple as that. This just seems like a spillover of sour grapes, that has nothing to do with the playoff match-ups this week. Its obvious your still unhappy that the league didn't support the idea of intentionally worsening your lineup to create an imbalance in the league schedule, which I'm sure you can understand the reasoning behind it. I get it I'm also a person who looks for loopholes in rules to do the best I can, and I can distinctly remember having conversations around the the potential legitimacy of what you did with other members mid-season, as it was an option I was considering myself when it became clear that I was throwing in the towel this year. But ultimately If you wanted to worsen your draft position you could have liquidated stronger players into weaker players and other assets.

What this points to again is the necessity of an updated thought out CBA that sets rules that we can all work around as we see fit, and not get these mid-season rule arguments/changes.

[Lee]

Maybe you can take over for me and finally have a decent franchise.

[Matthew]

.

What this points to again is the necessity of an updated thought out CBA that sets rules that we can all work around as we see fit, and not get these mid-season rule arguments/changes.

Bingo.

[Bruyns]

Last year I took over and benched my best 3 players every week for the first half of the season to worsen my record. I figured it was smart GMing to improve my asset and there was no rule against it. There is now a rule against it and Mik using Darling is not dressing a blatantly worse lineup, the key word is blatantly and Mik can easily make a case this was his best lineup.

Can we move on since this is all pretty silly. Lee was smart to exploit the loop hole and wasn't the only one to do so and now no one can.

[Matthew]

Can we move on since this is all pretty silly.

Yes, sir.

[kyuss]

couple of retards in this thread, or more probably, couple of guys wanting to argue for the sake of arguing and wasting some time, sigh.