Buds Board Keepers League

I traded 3rd round picks for Meszaros and Hillen to meet GP.

I also traded away a large portion of my youth to acquire Dubinsky and Duchene.

Lee wroteCOLONI traded 3rd round picks for Meszaros and Hillen to meet GP.

I also traded away a large portion of my youth to acquire Dubinsky and Duchene.

Seems reasonable what u paid for mezaros and hillen.

Not sure why you threw in duby and Duchene. Those are clearly upgrades and not the wasting of assets to meet a gp number so as to not be penalized.

Lee wroteCOLON

Fraser wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLON

Fraser wroteCOLONGod we need a new CBA. Once a CC is set and we can start getting things stamped, Ill start pushing that CBA thread hard again to get that thing done. Because having to go through conversations and decision making like this shouldn't be happening.

Completely agree.

Another thing is that this is setting precedence moving forward, not just in the matter of McDavid.

Don't know if I totally agree with that. In my opinion unclarity and poor decision making has led us to the situation we are currently in on this matter. If this decision is in fact a precedent setter we would have to overlook a lot of that, to make a decision based on what we want the rules to be going forward keeping all aspects of the process in mind. Which I don't think would benefit you here. Hell if it really was a precedent setter, in my opinion, we should be making Edmonton the lottery winner, and you drafting 4th overall with Billy paying a 2nd and a 3rd your way. But I agree, that would be ridiculous course of action at this point.

How did you come to this conclusion?

This ruling was based on precedence set in previous years with the pick moving back post lottery. It's one that neither of us agree with, but it's where we stand.

The new ruling is the compensation owed. The current debate is when it is owed, based on the picks standing.

Without too much reiteration. Essentially within this formula.

Formula to assess the amount of the pick/s' penalization:
Adjustment = POINTSperGP x UnderLimit
Points + Adjustment = points to be used in the standings to determine the draft order
UnderLimit = number of games missing to reach the minimum
POINTSperGP = Points/GP
Points = total points at the end of the season

Essentially, the team position is just being adjusted for the missed games; the ensuing new position in the standing affects all the team's picks still owned and the team's 1st round pick no matter if still owned or not.

Can not be applied post lottery if the pick wins. So if this formula is our precedent going forward we have to either.

A) Make the adjustment pre-lottery
B) Make the adjustment post-lottery with a special clause surrounding what is done if the pick in question wins the lottery.

Due to this oversight, we have landed ourselves in an undefined scenario within this rule. And all the resultant confusion has been because of this. If A was our precedent, you would have drafted 4th overall and Billy would have paid you a 2nd and a 3rd. But B is where we stand right now, in an undefined zone. Now is this where we want to be going forward? Personally I think it it much simpler to make the adjustment pre-lottery. But where we stand right now based on the decisions that we made on the fly, we need a new rule intervention.

The issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

Personally I would heavily advocate the pre-lottery adjustment being set in our updated CBA, then all the other set rules all work perfectly in line with it. And it would get insanely complicated next year on with 3 lottery winners if we do the adjustment post lottery with all these additional clauses to organize the standings properly afterwards if there is a GP offence.

At the end of the day, I think its clear that either a fuck up or oversight took place. You made out like a bandit already because of this. So I think you should just take the 2nd and 3rd, be happy you are sitting at #2 instead of #4 and we call it a day and fix the error going forward.

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

solid post.

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

Did he not have the pick before Ottawa was clearly not going to perform well? I don't know why we're penalizing him for making a trade that ended up winning the lottery, and allowing Ottawa to minimize penalty. Don't think because he was fortunate to win the draft, he then has to take back seat on his compensation. Sure if everyone was chums, he could take the 2nd/3rd, but I don't think he should be accused of being greedy for requesting what he should be entitled to.

What about 2016 1st or 2017 1st as a compromise?... make it lottery protected?

thom54 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

solid post.

lol not solid. And just throwing this out there... but if this wasn't lee, would everyone be so averse to him getting the 1st? Don't know if the "greedy" comments would be coming out of the woodwork so much...

bills09 wroteCOLONI vote for Anton Kareem Scott Smith and Shiv

hahaha the ASK movement - good times. i think the S was actually steve tho if i remember right.

"ASK yourselves what the CC can do for you!"

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLON

thom54 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

solid post.

lol not solid. And just throwing this out there... but if this wasn't lee, would everyone be so averse to him getting the 1st? Don't know if the "greedy" comments would be coming out of the woodwork so much...

Really disagree with you here Mike, don't have anything else to say beyond what I've already stated in this thread. My point of view is more geared towards a CC mistake shouldn't hurt Billy more, rather than a depriving Lee of more assets opinion. Lee has already moved from #4 to #2 because of the choices that were made by the CC. I don't think Billy should get a stiffer penalty because of this.

anton wroteCOLON

bills09 wroteCOLONI vote for Anton Kareem Scott Smith and Shiv

hahaha the ASK movement - good times. i think the S was actually steve tho if i remember right.

"ASK yourselves what the CC can do for you!"

YA this was it, we came up with this like 3 or 4 years ago? haha

ironically, it actually led to a CC change.

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

being lucky does not invalidate the claim that compensation is owed within the rules set by the CC.

Fraser wroteCOLONPersonally I would heavily advocate the pre-lottery adjustment being set in our updated CBA, then all the other set rules all work perfectly in line with it. And it would get insanely complicated next year on with 3 lottery winners if we do the adjustment post lottery with all these additional clauses to organize the standings properly afterwards if there is a GP offence.

At the end of the day, I think its clear that either a fuck up or oversight took place. You made out like a bandit already because of this. So I think you should just take the 2nd and 3rd, be happy you are sitting at #2 instead of #4 and we call it a day and fix the error going forward.

Above post, being lucky does not invalidate the claim that a 1st overall compensation is due.

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLON

thom54 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

solid post.

lol not solid. And just throwing this out there... but if this wasn't lee, would everyone be so averse to him getting the 1st? Don't know if the "greedy" comments would be coming out of the woodwork so much...

I'm very vocal and opinionated.

Some say those are my better qualities.

Fraser wroteCOLON

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLON

thom54 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

solid post.

lol not solid. And just throwing this out there... but if this wasn't lee, would everyone be so averse to him getting the 1st? Don't know if the "greedy" comments would be coming out of the woodwork so much...

Really disagree with you here Mike, don't have anything else to say beyond what I've already stated in this thread. My point of view is more geared towards a CC mistake shouldn't hurt Billy more, rather than a depriving Lee of more assets opinion. Lee has already moved from #4 to #2 because of the choices that were made by the CC. I don't think Billy should get a stiffer penalty because of this.

Billy missed GP. Not me. I've already lost out on McDavid because of this. the 2nd and 3rd over a 1st is just further punishment against me. Indirectly, but still punishment.

Lee wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

being lucky does not invalidate the claim that compensation is owed within the rules set by the CC.

My argument would be the situation we are in is undefined within the rules of the CC. As the point adjustment formula is inapplicable to the standings in this scenario, leaving all resultant penalties defined within that adjustment rule invalidated, as this is an undefined scenario.

Fraser wroteCOLON

Handsome&FairMike wroteCOLON

thom54 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLONThe issue I see arising is you can't make a 1st appear out of thin air. If Billy owes a 1st he has to trade for it and no one wants to trade 1sts in this draft. No chance he is going to get a 1st at a fair price at this point of the year. It would make more sense for him to refuse to trade for a 1st and deal with the CC on a solution. Lee could then be awarded 31st and Billy would be punished in another way such as forfeiting a future pick.

Also Lee you never lost out on McDavid, that pick was going to be penalized and you know that. It was either going to be 4th overall or 2nd overall and you lucked out HUGE getting Eichel instead of 4th so stop acting like the victim when this situation is already benefiting you. Any additional compensation you get is a bonus since you already made out like a bandit with that pick being so high due to missing GP and then winning the lottery and getting Eichel.

solid post.

lol not solid. And just throwing this out there... but if this wasn't lee, would everyone be so averse to him getting the 1st? Don't know if the "greedy" comments would be coming out of the woodwork so much...

Really disagree with you here Mike, don't have anything else to say beyond what I've already stated in this thread. My point of view is more geared towards a CC mistake shouldn't hurt Billy more, rather than a depriving Lee of more assets opinion. Lee has already moved from #4 to #2 because of the choices that were made by the CC. I don't think Billy should get a stiffer penalty because of this.

Ya but you're assuming they made the mistake... at the end of the day its the CC to decide what they intended. I can't remember what the rule says, but from what I recall it sounded a lot like post-lottery (... correct me if i'm wrong here). Bottom line - this should be an easy fix and I don't understand why its taking the CC this long to sort out?

KapG wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONI traded 3rd round picks for Meszaros and Hillen to meet GP.

I also traded away a large portion of my youth to acquire Dubinsky and Duchene.

Seems reasonable what u paid for mezaros and hillen.

Not sure why you threw in duby and Duchene. Those are clearly upgrades and not the wasting of assets to meet a gp number so as to not be penalized.

My point was that corrections were made on my end to play within the rules. I didn't want to trade away those prospects but I did because I had to make GP.

Those trades triggered a chain of events that let me on a different path. I was content with rebuilding slowly. I was not content with missing GP and having my pick suffer as a result. Billy had every opportunity to acquire those Hillens and Meszarosz's for cheap prices but instead chose to let his line up deteriorate.

i see both points but really dont care as it doesn't affect me.

i would also argue that opinions are probably not based on people liking or disliking one of billy/Lee. Guys like Matt Bryuns and Fraser seem pretty unbais

Essentially 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.