Garbage thread

[Nick]

It is pretty easy to see.

[Lee]

I had Khudobin active. I had Cam Ward benched. I didn't even need to have Drew McIntyre in my active lineup. I was told that I needed to have 2 active NHL goalies. The rule clearly states I only needed one, but I was forced to dress 2.

I don't think anyone ever forced you to dress both goalies. The new rule we added certainly didn't force you to dress 2 goalies.

So I guess now it would be okay for me to just dress Khudobin, seeing how he has 5 games in 10 days? What is the standard deviation for games played in a month? See below.

So why was I forced to dress Cam Ward and Anton Khudobin?

again, I don't think anyone ever forced you to dress Ward AND Khudobin. If you dressed only the goalie supposed to play back then rather than only the goalie supposed not to play, no one would have had reasons to put this new rule to work on that one.
Btw, if you were so sold on your reasoning that dressing Khudobin AND benching Ward was the best option to make your lineup better, you could still have done that just to convince the CC of your reasons afterwards, as the rule contemplates.
You probably knew you had no good argument to convince anyone on that, and for that reason you ended up dressing Ward (on top of Khudobin, which was your call).

Why are you allowed to dress just Darling? He has played 1 game since Feb 27th. Maybe I felt as if Khudobin gave me the best chance to win?

The purpose of what you were doing and what I am doing were crystal clear and opposite, and the field for possible CC intervention is made very clear in the rule: "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 "

Again, Darling has 1 game since Feb 27th. Why is this allowed but me dressing Khudo was not?

How is this not the exact same thing that Mik is doing right now? The exact same thing that a rule was created for?

obviously not, see above and re-read the rule to see what it was created for. And you know this perfectly no matter how hard you try to suggest otheriwse.

See above

If we are making these types of rules subjective, where do we draw the line?

this rule being subjective to CC's judgement was never a secret:
"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."
and the arguments you're making only confirm that's the right way to proceed.

Maybe you are trying to tank in the playoffs to let Colorado win. I guess the CC will have to question you as well. Ah right, you are the CC.

[Lee]

And yes, I was led to believe that 2 goalies must be dressed. Why else would a rule need to be created when I had an (1) active NHL goalie dressed, along with an AHL goalie ( 1 ). Khudobin played in the week that I had Mc dressed and had better stats than Cam Ward in Week 13. In week 14, Khudobin did not play. Sorry for not being a psychic?

[Lee]

It is pretty easy to see.

All I see is a rule being created by a group and then not observed by that group. Dressing a goalie who has 1 game played in almost a month during the playoffs seems like blatant tanking to me.

[CAM]

[kyuss]

Why are you allowed to dress just Darling? He has played 1 game since Feb 27th.

Because I'm obviously not tanking and moreover, because a reasonable argument can be made that he gives me the best chance to win
(especially when dressing both him and Bobrovsky could have led to more than 4gp, bringing unpredictable consequences)

Maybe I felt as if Khudobin gave me the best chance to win?

we all know you didn't. But in any case, you could have maintained that and then tried to convince the CC, if you thought it was a reasonable stance.

Again, Darling has 1 game since Feb 27th. Why is this allowed but me dressing Khudo was not?

see above.

Maybe you are trying to tank in the playoffs to let Colorado win. I guess the CC will have to question you as well. Ah right, you are the CC.

I am only 1/4 of the CC (even if with the other members putting less time into it I've been forced to do more than 1/4 of the work, unfortunately).

And in a case like this I obviously wouldn't be part of the voting.

So if the CC determines my lineup needs to be fixed (which, who knows, might even end up helping me out) I will take the chance to explain my lineup decisions, as per the rule. The CC will then decide if my lineup can remain the same I picked or not.

[Lee]

I was never given an option to make my case.

I dressed Khudo and Mc
CC determines that is a no no, new rule made.

Maybe you're not trying to tank. Maybe you are. I have no idea of your intentions or side dealings. I just see no sense in dressing a guy with one start in almost a month and that has 10 career games over last years Vezina winner.

[dave1959]

stop posting garbage!!!

lol

[Sensfanjosh]

Lee probably already knows all this, by just in case some other GM (like Josh maybe) got confused by his silly argument....

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.

not even making it bold and red was enough for you to see the intent of the rule?

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.

not to talk about the fact you seem to confuse the better players concept with the better lineup one.
Last week I didn't dress Malkin even if he is my best player.. it wasn't sure he would play any game. Eventually he didn't play any, so not dressing my best player made my lineup better.

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?

no, it's simply because I'm obviously not breaking any rule.

I met GP. There was no rule saying I could not dress a sub optimal lineup.

in fact you were not sanctioned for that. Now you would.

By the same token, since I was led to believe that I NEEDED to have 2 goalies dressed,

what? where does the rule say you need to always dress 2 goalies? Nowhere.

I understand well enough Mik, but thank you for being concerned about my comprehension. My concern is this though, and not saying this is taking place, but if for example you are knocked out this round and at some point in the future a deal is made between you and your opponent providing you with a win in value, might we not look back to your dressing Darling over Bob with a bit of suscpision. This is unlikely I know but I think there is at least a reasonable amount of doubt to say that you are in fact not dressing the best roster, this week by sitting Bob. I can see what you're saying and understand it, but as Lee is (unsuccessfully) trying to point out I think that the justification you've provided is opening pandora's box as far as setting a precedent. If next season I am "rebuilding" and decide to sit my starter because my backup has provided good stats in limited work would I be allowed to sit Halak for Neuvirth and not be subject to questioning? Hopefully that is clear, I'm just worried that being able to reasonably defend a judgement is not being applied as slippery as it is here in all cases.

[kyuss]

I was never given an option to make my case.

I dressed Khudo and Mc
CC determines that is a no no, new rule made.

I think CC only told you that would be fixed. You then decided to dress both Ward and Khudo, which obviously ended that argument.
That doesn't mean the CC forced you to dress both. You could have dressed Ward alone, who was safe to play that week, and CC wouldn't have had an argument to change your lineup.

Maybe you're not trying to tank. Maybe you are. I have no idea of your intentions or side dealings. I just see no sense in dressing a guy with one start in almost a month and that has 10 career games over last years Vezina winner.

maybe looking at the scredule you would get the 'sense' in it.

Anyway, as said, the CC can fix my lineup if they assess it's an obvious case of tanking, I'll explain again why it isn't if that happens.

[Lee]

I was never given an option to make my case.

I dressed Khudo and Mc
CC determines that is a no no, new rule made.

I think CC only told you that would be fixed. You then decided to dress both Ward and Khudo, which obviously ended that argument.
That doesn't mean the CC forced you to dress both. You could have dressed Ward alone, who was safe to play that week, and CC wouldn't have had an argument to change your lineup.

Maybe you're not trying to tank. Maybe you are. I have no idea of your intentions or side dealings. I just see no sense in dressing a guy with one start in almost a month and that has 10 career games over last years Vezina winner.

maybe looking at the scredule you would get the 'sense' in it.

Anyway, as said, the CC can fix my lineup if they assess it's an obvious case of tanking, I'll explain again why it isn't if that happens.

Please define "safe to play", kudo has played 5 games in 9 days. Is ward no.longer "safe to play" in a stand alone goalie situation? What standards are we following here? At what point could I switch between the 2?

I dressed them both because I was under the impression that I had to dress 2 NHL level goalies, because one apparently wasn't enough. Until now, which you are doing

[Nick]

dressing the line-up that you believe helps you win, and doing so honestly. should not be a hard thing to ask of our GMs.



So step back from this argument. Take a breath. and make sure you're being reasonable.

[Fraser]

Really seems like a situation that if you bring a little common sense to the table it sorts itself out. If a losing team is sitting major players of theirs it sends up all kinds of red flags, yet if a competitive team does it it causes you to dig deeper for the rationale behind it, which in this case has an understandable argument to why it is taking place.

[kyuss]

Please define "safe to play", kudo has played 5 games in 9 days. Is ward no.longer "safe to play" in a stand alone goalie situation? What standards are we following here? At what point could I switch between the 2?

the standard is assessing each situation in the present time in a reasonable way. CC subjectivity is inevitably part of it.
And obviously the fact Kudo is playing now while he was not playing much back then would be relevant.

I dressed them both because I was under the impression that I had to dress 2 NHL level goalies, because one apparently wasn't enough.

It's unfortunate you got that wrong impression, but going back and reading what was said at the time, I don't think any CC member made it look that way, nor the rule does.

[Lee]

Taking a step back does not answer the hypocrisy of this. All you are doing is sweeping it under the rug under the pretense that he is trying to win while I was trying to lose by doing the exact same thing. One is somehow better than the other. It's not like McIntyre was the only goalie I dressed. Being pissed and making rules over that I could understand. But being told I can't dress 1 active NHL goalie while Mik can under the pretense of winning is hypocritical. Then, not being given any parameters to just when or when I can't dress certain goalies. Hah. But, Mik can dress a goalie that has played 1 game over the last month. At the time, Khudo played 5 over the last month that I dressed him and Mc.

[Matthew]

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.

Not gonna lie, I like to argue, erm...discuss issues.

Also kinda funny that mik called me an retard for arguing with Lee, and then begins arguing the same issue with Lee.

Lee is good at dragging people uni argument with repetitive arguments where he will never get his own way.

[Lee]

Really seems like a situation that if you bring a little common sense to the table it sorts itself out. If a losing team is sitting major players of theirs it sends up all kinds of red flags, yet if a competitive team does it it causes you to dig deeper for the rationale behind it, which in this case has an understandable argument to why it is taking place.

And that is still hypocritical. It's a different set of rules for teams in different positions.

[Lee]

Please define "safe to play", kudo has played 5 games in 9 days. Is ward no.longer "safe to play" in a stand alone goalie situation? What standards are we following here? At what point could I switch between the 2?

the standard is assessing each situation in the present time in a reasonable way. CC subjectivity is inevitably part of it.
And obviously the fact Kudo is playing now while he was not playing much back then would be relevant.

I dressed them both because I was under the impression that I had to dress 2 NHL level goalies, because one apparently wasn't enough.

It's unfortunate you got that wrong impression, but going back and reading what was said at the time, I don't think any CC member made it look that way, nor the rule does.

Again I ask, what are the standards for allowing us to play one goaltender over another in a single goalie situation.

[kyuss]

Taking a step back does not answer the hypocrisy of this. All you are doing is sweeping it under the rug under the pretense that he is trying to win while I was trying to lose by doing the exact same thing.

I am dressing 1 goalie I think will play cause he is expected to play at least one game this week, you dressed 1 goalie you thought would not play cause he was unlikely to play that week, so we are not doing the same thing.

In any case, determining that 'pretense' is exactly what the CC is there for. It seems the CC thinks I am trying to win and thought you were trying to lose, which makes the two cases different.

[Lee]

Taking a step back does not answer the hypocrisy of this. All you are doing is sweeping it under the rug under the pretense that he is trying to win while I was trying to lose by doing the exact same thing.

I am dressing 1 goalie I think will play cause he is expected to play at least one game this week, you dressed 1 goalie you thought would not play cause he was unlikely to play that week, so we are not doing the same thing.

In any case, determining that 'pretense' is exactly what the CC is there for. It seems the CC thinks I am trying to win and thought you were trying to lose, which makes the two cases different.

How do you know what I was thinking?

What you were doing was assuming.

How do we know that your intent is not to tank the series for a future payoff in a deal? I formally accuse you of such.