Buds Board Keepers League

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON lol, let me add a due in your opinion.

We go by CBS positions, and can apply for changes with an admin (Scott/Matt/Mike) provided we have substantial evidence, I.E. game sheet, or confirmation from a major site (NHL.com/yahoo/espn).

fine, so this is the 'rule', i couldn't read it anywhere.

any example of a gamesheet that could be used?
as for getting confirmation from major site, i know for sure yahoo has been crap till now as far position eligibility goes.. not sure about nhl.com and espn.. anyway, the question is:
all it takes to have the role changed/added is providing confirmation by ONE of those major sites?
If that's the case i think we can get the position we want for most players that ever played in more than one position, which could still be a standard, not saying otherwise.

Yep...Honestly I think some are making a big deal out of nothing, every league I have ever played in has some skewed eligibilty, I.E. Liriano with RP and SP eligibilty, but it's never been an issue, rather a motivator to collect guys like this. But it seems like enough people are on the same page here, so I don't forsee it being an issue.

i agree there is no point in arguing over a specific case before CBS updates..i was mentioning Steckel and Regin to understand the criteria used.
However, as for the subject not being a big deal, i disagree. Having a player's position changed, especially during the season, can be a decisive factor (obviously with main reference to FW).
You would have a point if players' roles were establlished once and for all at the start of the league, with all the GMs having the same chance to go after them, but that's not our case.

That is a terrible point...Position eligibility changes over the course of a season, players switch spots, or can get dual eligibility due to an injury, to limit players to one position at the start of the season is beyond moronic. I also completely disagree with you in regards to Yahoo, they are fantastic with eligibility, and make quick updates. I'm not sure what your problem with them is...

Yahoo has proved over the years to not have any consistency in their update (every year they do some random update till November).
Just to mention what's on top of my head, Yahoo added the RW position to Pavelski lol, whereas Oshie was only a C the whole season.
Anyway, that is not point.. i was just asking if one of those site was enough to be given the requested position, since you said there is no discrection involved, but you didn't reply on that.

As for the moronic thing.. i was not proposing positions to stay the same over the whole year actually (not that i would have any problem with that btw), you should probably pay more attention while reading.. rather, i was stating that the fact positions can change during the year make the way positions are changed/added quite a big deal.

Honestly I think some are making a big deal out of nothing, every league I have ever played in has some skewed eligibilty, I.E. Liriano with RP and SP eligibilty, but it's never been an issue, rather a motivator to collect guys like this

it would not be an issue but only a motivator if those guys were free agents, or up for grabs in a draft; once they are already owned and their position gets changed, that obviously can change a player's value and i don't see how motivating another GM to go after that player (paying more than before) would make it less of an issue.
If a GM owns Pavelski and he gets awarded the RW position whereas another one has Oshie and doesn't get the RW, that would be an issue, even if i would be more motivated to go after Pavelski, lol.

Yahoo is the worst position updater in the history of fantasy sports.

kyuss wroteCOLONYahoo has proved over the years to not have any consistency in their update (every year they do some random update till November).
Just to mention what's on top of my head, Yahoo added the RW position to Pavelski lol, whereas Oshie was only a C.

Do you watch hockey? To start the season Marleau played second line center, and Pavelski played the wing, it wasn't until Setoguchi got hurt, and Marleau moed up that Pavelski took over the second line center spot, it also coincided with his injury early in the season. That is why he had RW eligibility...As for Oshie he played nearly the entire season down the middle, he didn't line up at the dot, but he played crease to crease in every game I saw of him. Both are poor examples, and far too small to warrant complaint. Yahoo a reliable sites for posisition updates, besides we also hae ESPN and NHL.com to differ to in the event that the roster position is inconsistent between different sites.

kyuss wroteCOLONAnyway, that is not point.. i was just asking if one of those site was enough to be given the requested position, since you said there is no discrection involved, but you didn't reply on that.

Yes, one of those sites is enough to warrant a posisition claim.

kyuss wroteCOLONAs for the moronic thing.. i was not proposing positions to stay the same over the whole year actually (not that i would have any problem with that btw), you should probably pay more attention while reading.. rather, i was stating that the fact positions can change during the year make the way positions are changed/added quite a big deal.

Yes you did...

kyuss wroteCOLONYou would have a point if players' roles were establlished once and for all at the start of the league, with all the GMs having the same chance to go after them, but that's not our case.

You should probably pay more attention to what you write, or perhaps how you write it.

kyuss wroteCOLONit would not be an issue but only a motivator if those guys were free agents, or up for grabs in a draft; once they are already owned and their position gets changed, that obviously can change a player's value and i don't see how motivating another GM to go after that player (paying more than before) would make it less of an issue.

What the fuck does UFA have to do with any of this, this is an absurd point. In either scenario trades are going to be made for such players, and the same advantage is going to apply...Player value changes year to year, the guys who take draws on the wing this season aren't neccasarilly the guys who will be taking draws from the wing next season, making your point moot.

kyuss wroteCOLONIf a GM owns Pavelski and he gets awarded the RW position whereas another one has Oshie and doesn't get the RW, that would be an issue, even if i would be more motivated to go after Pavelski, lol.

Thats why we have the ability to petition for a posisition change...

Snipeshow wroteCOLONYahoo is the worst position updater in the history of fantasy sports.

You clearly haven't played in many fantasy leagues

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

Snipeshow wroteCOLONYahoo is the worst position updater in the history of fantasy sports.

You clearly haven't played in many fantasy leagues

Lol, I play in a lot every year, but mostly on Yahoo.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLONYahoo has proved over the years to not have any consistency in their update (every year they do some random update till November).
Just to mention what's on top of my head, Yahoo added the RW position to Pavelski lol, whereas Oshie was only a C.

Do you watch hockey? To start the season Marleau played second line center, and Pavelski played the wing, it wasn't until Setoguchi got hurt, and Marleau moed up that Pavelski took over the second line center spot, it also coincided with his injury early in the season. That is why he had RW eligibility...

and that was a ridiculous decision. Pavelski playing some games as a RW doesn't make him a RW. Especially when you don't use the same standard for other players.. but i see somehow you maintain Pavelski deserved the W position whereas Regin and Oshie didn't. Worrisome.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

As for Oshie he played nearly the entire season down the middle, he didn't line up at the dot, but he played crease to crease in every game I saw of him.
Both are poor examples, and far too small to warrant complaint. Yahoo a reliable sites for posisition updates, besides we also hae ESPN and NHL.com to differ to in the event that the roster position is inconsistent between different sites.

kyuss wroteCOLONAnyway, that is not point.. i was just asking if one of those site was enough to be given the requested position, since you said there is no discrection involved, but you didn't reply on that.

Yes, one of those sites is enough to warrant a posisition claim.

and to get it automatically awarded? or does the assignment of that requested position is decided under the discretion of the CBS administrator, judging case by case?

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLONAs for the moronic thing.. i was not proposing positions to stay the same over the whole year actually (not that i would have any problem with that btw), you should probably pay more attention while reading.. rather, i was stating that the fact positions can change during the year make the way positions are changed/added quite a big deal.

Yes you did...

kyuss wroteCOLONYou would have a point if players' roles were establlished once and for all at the start of the league, with all the GMs having the same chance to go after them, but that's not our case.

You should probably pay more attention to what you write, or perhaps how you write it.

please point me out where i proposed/asked for that. Cause I didn't in the words you quoted, and i didn't elsewhere. So stop putting words in my mouth just because that's what you're thinking.
"You would have a point if" is quite different from " we should.." or " why not establishing.."

What the fuck does UFA have to do with any of this, this is an absurd point.

going on not getting what i was saying i guess.. but anyway..

In either scenario trades are going to be made for such players, and the same advantage is going to apply...Player value changes year to year, the guys who take draws on the wing this season aren't neccasarilly the guys who will be taking draws from the wing next season, making your point moot

the point is positions can be relevant and the way they are awarded is as well, as a consequence.
suppose last season Pavelski had the RW despite non deserving it, it's still an unfair advantage his owner had even if the following year lil Joe is back to C. The fact things change doesn't mean necessarily things will even out.. it could be the same team benefiting again by a fake winger taking faceoffs.. cause it's not only about what changes happens on the ice, it's also about how positions are awarded (correctly or not.. where more than anything else, that means consistently or not ), so that point still applies.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLONIf a GM owns Pavelski and he gets awarded the RW position whereas another one has Oshie and doesn't get the RW, that would be an issue, even if i would be more motivated to go after Pavelski, lol.

Thats why we have the ability to petition for a posisition change...

and that's why i was trying to get how position changes are decided.

Sigh...I'm done, you continually bring up the same stupid argument, despite my attempts to show you the error in your argument. IF a player plays a set amount of games he gets dual eligibilty, that is the same in any fantasy league, I have no idea what your trying to prove here.

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONSigh...I'm done, you continually bring up the same stupid argument, despite my attempts to show you the error in your argument. IF a player plays a set amount of games he gets dual eligibilty, that is the same in any fantasy league..

it is not.. but anyway, the set amount of games being? is there some kind of a number?

kyuss wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONSigh...I'm done, you continually bring up the same stupid argument, despite my attempts to show you the error in your argument. IF a player plays a set amount of games he gets dual eligibilty, that is the same in any fantasy league..

it is not.. but anyway, the set amount of games being? is there some kind of a number?

Ok it's the same in a ast majority of fantasy leagues...Happy?

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

MSP4LYFE wroteCOLONSigh...I'm done, you continually bring up the same stupid argument, despite my attempts to show you the error in your argument. IF a player plays a set amount of games he gets dual eligibilty, that is the same in any fantasy league..

it is not.. but anyway, the set amount of games being? is there some kind of a number?

Ok it's the same in a ast majority of fantasy leagues...Happy?

to be honest, it's never been that way in the 3 or 4 leagues i've been in along the years, but who cares about that fact itself.. more relevant could be the reason behind it: how keeping count of the games played in a different position?
You said there is a set amoung of games, so i ask which is that set amount and what's the source used to show/takecountof the position covered by the considered player in every other game.

guys, its as simple as being logical


pavelski is clearly 100% centre.

Backes is the point of a difficult decision IMO, however I do not watch enough St Louis hockey games to truly know.

Zetty seems to change year from year, IMO he should be a centre UNLESS he's playing the majority of the time on the wing....however i find the wings super boring and rarely watch more then quick glimpses (or when they are playing someone I enjoy watching)


Grioux, Park, Pavelski, Steckel are all centre-men.... especially if you take the time to watch a game ( seems to be a rarity among online posters), however they also all play for teams I watch very regularly...

Wow, you guys are super quoters. I don't think it is that big of a deal. If you have an issue with a position eligibility we should just have a thread where you request a change with proof from one or maybe 2 credible sources(TSN, NHL, HockeyDB, HF, etc.) and the admins will change it. Its not hard and it shouldn't have that much controversy. Like on my team I will look at this with Marleau(LW,RW,C), Carkner(forward and D), Hunwick(forward and D), Kesler(RW,C). Now a player like Hunwick or Carkner who play forward maybe 15 games out of the year does not really deserve a forward eligibility.