Buds Board Keepers League

Lee wroteCOLONGotta keep Kessel if you get McDavid.

Why? So he can teach him how to be a lazy, soft, defensively challenged plague?

Kessel needs to be purged from this team.

Lee wroteCOLONAren't you one of the ones on me for tanking in BBKL but you are fine with it in the NHL?

Iirc the only thing I called you out on was dressing goalies that wouldn't play so you would purposefully lose all the goalie cats.

Tank all you want but don't dress guys that you know won't play so you can lose those cats every time.

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONGotta keep Kessel if you get McDavid.

Why? So he can teach him how to be a lazy, soft, defensively challenged plague?

Kessel needs to be purged from this team.

Kessel needs a legit number 1 center.

Just like Sundin needed legit wingers.

It's a problem that plagues this team, not surrounding our star players with like talent.

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONAren't you one of the ones on me for tanking in BBKL but you are fine with it in the NHL?

Iirc the only thing I called you out on was dressing goalies that wouldn't play so you would purposefully lose all the goalie cats.

Tank all you want but don't dress guys that you know won't play so you can lose those cats every time.

Not getting into this BS again. I've explained my position and it's your fault if you don't understand it.

Lee wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONGotta keep Kessel if you get McDavid.

Why? So he can teach him how to be a lazy, soft, defensively challenged plague?

Kessel needs to be purged from this team.

Kessel needs a legit number 1 center.

Just like Sundin needed legit wingers.

It's a problem that plagues this team, not surrounding our star players with like talent.

A number one centre isn't going to recreate Phil as a player. All his deficiencies will still be there.

Lee wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONAren't you one of the ones on me for tanking in BBKL but you are fine with it in the NHL?

Iirc the only thing I called you out on was dressing goalies that wouldn't play so you would purposefully lose all the goalie cats.

Tank all you want but don't dress guys that you know won't play so you can lose those cats every time.

Not getting into this BS again. I've explained my position and it's your fault if you don't understand it.

Lol, buddy. I'm not talking Bout your recent discussions with Mik.

At one point when you reached the mandatory ggp minimum you were trying to dress goalies that you knew wouldn't play so you'd lose goalie cats every week.

It's funny you say that, because Phil was playing a better defensive game.

It's not like Phil is the only one who has given up on this season.

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONAren't you one of the ones on me for tanking in BBKL but you are fine with it in the NHL?

Iirc the only thing I called you out on was dressing goalies that wouldn't play so you would purposefully lose all the goalie cats.

Tank all you want but don't dress guys that you know won't play so you can lose those cats every time.

Not getting into this BS again. I've explained my position and it's your fault if you don't understand it.

Lol, buddy. I'm not talking Bout your recent discussions with Mik.

At one point when you reached the mandatory ggp minimum you were trying to dress goalies that you knew wouldn't play so you'd lose goalie cats every week.

So instead of blaming me for finding a loop hole, raise the mandatory minimum? Others have openly said that they have benched their best players, bench their goalies, etc to help them tank.

I know kessel isn't the only one to give up, thankfully most of them have lol!

I dressed my worst possible lineup against paul amd still beat him 15.5 - 0.5

Lee wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLON

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONAren't you one of the ones on me for tanking in BBKL but you are fine with it in the NHL?

Iirc the only thing I called you out on was dressing goalies that wouldn't play so you would purposefully lose all the goalie cats.

Tank all you want but don't dress guys that you know won't play so you can lose those cats every time.

Not getting into this BS again. I've explained my position and it's your fault if you don't understand it.

Lol, buddy. I'm not talking Bout your recent discussions with Mik.

At one point when you reached the mandatory ggp minimum you were trying to dress goalies that you knew wouldn't play so you'd lose goalie cats every week.

So instead of blaming me for finding a loop hole, raise the mandatory minimum? Others have openly said that they have benched their best players, bench their goalies, etc to help them tank.

Show me some other people who have admitted to dressing goalies they know won't play so they can lose those categories every week.

I believe matt admitted to it.

Quote limit..

Not sure I admitted to that, myself. Not sure why anyone would, given the stigma around it.

Having the CC determine who we can and can't play based on an undefined set of rules is opening a can of worms that we've worked so hard to avoid. To me, it's along the same lines of veto'ing trades. I could understand the ruling if I was only dressing McIntyre, but I had a legitimate NHL goaltender in my lineup.

I can remember asking a long term member here back in November/December about the legitimacy of icing a inferior lineup, and their answer at the time was it may be frowned upon but all that mattered was reaching GP. Personally I was only considering it during some of my weeks against bottom feeder opponents to level the playing field, but I would have done the same thing as Lee to close out the season if the rule didn't change. So in that sense I can admit to the intention of doing so as well.

So I traded my starter instead.

Anyways Lee, I've never been against Anyone in here tanking as long as they dress players that will play. I've really only ever been against dressing goalies someone knows won't play so they can guarantee themselves a 3 (or do they get the SO loss too?) Cat loss before the week starts.

KapG wroteCOLON

Arian The Insider wroteCOLONI'd wager against it too because I doubt the raptors can be a playoff team for most of the next 10 years. The younger generation of people are really into the Raptors though and don't give a shit about the Leafs. The Raptors are the hottest team in town right now though and basketball is a more popular and recognizable sport for immigrants. That's for sure.

I have a tough time watching the raps because Dwayne Casey is such an awful coach. Lots of pieces I don't like too.

I agree, Casey is an awful head coach. They're a solid team but they won't make much noise in the playoffs. Missing a big piece or two and some stability from a backup center.

Lee wroteCOLONHaving the CC determine who we can and can't play based on an undefined set of rules is opening a can of worms that we've worked so hard to avoid. To me, it's along the same lines of veto'ing trades. I could understand the ruling if I was only dressing McIntyre, but I had a legitimate NHL goaltender in my lineup.

for the record, the CC didn't end up making any ruling on that situation.
It was pointed out the CC would look into that, as from previous weeks already it was obvious Lee was tanking.
At that point Lee dressed both goalies, which obviously meant there was no further need to discuss, let alone ruling.

Again, your reasoning here is bullshit.You singled me out as the reason for the rule being made. How am I not to take that as " change your line up or be fined".

Lee wroteCOLONAgain, your reasoning here is bullshit.You singled me out as the reason for the rule being made. How am I not to take that as " change your line up or be fined".

you were used as an example, cause you provided the perfect example to show why the rule was needed and when it may apply:

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.

I think most remember you were getting weeks with zero goalies starts on purpose.

And the same had started to happen again this season, which only confirmed the need for the announcement of a rule already discussed and basically agreed on during the past off-season. But obviously it was going to be implemented no matter if you were again the one taking advantage of the loophole or not.

Would the CC have deemed your next lineup illegal and rejected your reasons if you didn't make that change?
we can't know, I don't even remember how exactly the situation looked going into that week, 3 months ago, and obviously I don't know how the other CC members would have judged it.

Last season I had Mark Andre Fleury in net, so I certainly was not getting 0 goalie starts.