Garbage thread

[kyuss]

That is a pretty big IF considering they don't play back to back this week.

Honestly, I'll be shocked if Darling doesn't get any game this week after the way he played in his last game..

and even if that happens, that probably would bring the same results I would get dressing CLB goalies this week: lose 3 G stats anyway.

I watched the CLB game in Calgary, it was a miracle they won that game, Anisimov was their only player with a strong game, if they play the same way this week they hardly have a chance and Bob can't always make miracles.

[The BBKL Insider]

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.

Now ive seen it all. The guy who argues the most is complaining about others arguing.

[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.

Now ive seen it all. The guy who argues the most is complaining about others arguing.

arguing about Kim being African rather than Asian is different from arguing against GMs wanting to apply phantom rules..

[kyuss]

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.

[thom54]

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.

Now ive seen it all. The guy who argues the most is complaining about others arguing.

arguing about Kim being African rather than Asian is different from arguing against GMs wanting to apply phantom rules..

haha i think i missed this

[The BBKL Insider]

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.

Now ive seen it all. The guy who argues the most is complaining about others arguing.

arguing about Kim being African rather than Asian is different from arguing against GMs wanting to apply phantom rules..

haha i think i missed this

he's sort of half and half

Big cock but looks asain

[Lee]

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.

So why was I forced to remove Drew McIntyre from my line up? Why was a rule created to prevent blatant tanking when I had an active goalie in my lineup ? Why was I forced to have 2?

[kyuss]

maybe your goaltender was injured?

I don't remember that specific McIntyre case

[Lee]

He was not.

[Bruyns]

He was not.

Weeks 13 and 14 you had Ward on the bench and McIntyre active. In those 2 weeks Ward played 6 games and Khudobin 1. In week 14 you had no goalie games forfeiting those stats while leaving an active Ward on the bench. There is no way you can argue this wasn't blatant tanking, I also agree it was smart since it wasn't against the rules at the time, now it is.

If that week you purposely benched your starter was against WPG it would have cost Shep a playoff spot due to you trying to lose. I can see why the CC changed the rule to prevent this type of situation from being a regular occurrence.

[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.

How is this not the exact same thing that Mik is doing right now? The exact same thing that a rule was created for? He has Darling playing. I had Khudo playing. He has Bob benched. I had Ward benched. He also has McElhinney benched.

How is this not the exact same thing? Because Darling has better stats than Khudo? It's tanking because Khudo has worse stats? Huge logical fallacy here.

[Bruyns]

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.

How is this not the exact same thing that Mik is doing right now? The exact same thing that a rule was created for? He has Darling playing. I had Khudo playing. He has Bob benched. I had Ward benched. He also has McElhinney benched.

How is this not the exact same thing? Because Darling has better stats than Khudo?

I get what you are saying.

"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."

This is the part that makes Mik's lineup legal. He thinks Darling will have better stats and help him win, he obviously isn't trying to lose his playoff matchup. Dressing a goalie who played once in 2 weeks and benching the guy who played 6 times wasn't a decision that was made to help you win it was to help you lose. It's definitely a grey area, but I think it's pretty easy to see the difference.

[Lee]

No, it's really not. It's a different set of rules for teams in different positions.

[Lee]

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.

If we are making these types of rules subjective, where do we draw the line? Is there a stat percentage vs GP spreadsheet that we need to follow? At what point can I dress one goalie over another? 1 goalie over 2? A guy with 10 career games over a Vezina winner?

[Lee]

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.

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

[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.

How is this not the exact same thing that Mik is doing right now? The exact same thing that a rule was created for? He has Darling playing. I had Khudo playing. He has Bob benched. I had Ward benched. He also has McElhinney benched.

How is this not the exact same thing? Because Darling has better stats than Khudo?

I get what you are saying.

"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."

This is the part that makes Mik's lineup legal. He thinks Darling will have better stats and help him win, he obviously isn't trying to lose his playoff matchup. Dressing a goalie who played once in 2 weeks and benching the guy who played 6 times wasn't a decision that was made to help you win it was to help you lose. It's definitely a grey area, but I think it's pretty easy to see the difference.

Khudo has played 5 games since March 15th. Would I be allowed to dress him now? What is the tipping point of GP / day ratio? What if I decided to dress Ward instead, figuring he would be playing more games going forward to give Khudo a rest? Would I be tanking at that point?

[The BBKL Insider]

Thom often only dressed Rinne, and i dont blame him. I'd want Rinnes starts only if i were him.

[Bruyns]

That's why GMs can present a case to the CC that they aren't blatantly tanking. If you could present a strong case that benching Ward and playing only the backup those two weeks wasn't tanking then it would be allowed. I'm getting drawn into an argument I have zero stake in though so I'm done.

[kyuss]

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 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).

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 "

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.

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.

[Lee]

I know you can't answer those questions. Maybe Mik can.