|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 21, 2015 12:45:26 GMT -5
Regarding the "tanking" talk lately. Although it is not a written rule, it is implied that teams are required to play their good players that are not on IR. Any team found to not comply to this implied rule will be asked to change their lineup to comply. This is the reason Sully quit, and I'm sorry, but I completely forgot I had posted this. I wish he or someone else would have brought this to my attention. I think Richmond should have his "best players' on his roster (and any other team that this may apply to) backdated to start of the season. Thoughts? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 13:54:37 GMT -5
I am fine with anything. Perhaps for next year, the lesson is that the Commissioner should have to "approve" the starting line ups? While there is some subjectivity, a top player should not be buried in the minors UNLESS it is legitimate cap-related move. Ongoing checking is much easier for waiver free players, but it's really hard to "fix" things if we aren't on top of it for the non-waiver players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 14:44:37 GMT -5
If a move is blatant tanking, it should be reversed in some way.
A move like E Stall in the minors right now on a competing team who acquired him midseason and could not fit him in his lineup if he tried, completely OK with that, he's depth right now. A move like keeping Letang in the minors in order to play Nate Schmidt, yeah that's a big problem.
I got crucified for benching Backstrom for one week last year, but Will is allowed to keep Staal and Letang in the minors all year? That's not a policy I agree with at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 21, 2015 14:51:06 GMT -5
Regarding the "tanking" talk lately. Although it is not a written rule, it is implied that teams are required to play their good players that are not on IR. Any team found to not comply to this implied rule will be asked to change their lineup to comply. This is the reason Sully quit, and I'm sorry, but I completely forgot I had posted this. I wish he or someone else would have brought this to my attention. I think Richmond should have his "best players' on his roster (and anyone other team that this may apply to) backdated to start of the season. Thoughts? I lost a lot of respect for Sully when he quit a league last year and this only reaffirms my thoughts on what type of person he is. I have no problem with a GM quitting a league because they have lost interest or have time constraints etc. but quitting because you dislike who someone dressed without bringing it up with the commish is pathetic. Like Dave said no one even pointed out that the above had been posted in the updated rules. The problem with retroactively dressing the "best" players is how do we determine who to take out of their lineup? It's easy to see looking back who didn't have good weeks, but heading into week 1 the GM might have thought they would do better. My main concern is it is still very difficult to determine who the best player is and if player A dressing over player B makes a team better. The worst player on a team might be a 4th line goon, but his 15min in PIMs in a week could win them that stat and a high priced W who doesn't play physical might put up no points, hits or blocks and go -4. So I don't pick on anyone else's players I will use Kessel as an example and maybe he didn't have many SOG that week so is this 8M W the "best player" over a 4th liner like Ott who that week puts up an assist, 21 hits, 17PIMs and 6 blocks? Blatant tanking like dressing injured players or AHL guys I am still very much against, but I have a hard time advocating for a system where "best" players have to be dressed when there is so much grey area with performance, cap hit and waiver eligibility. If a team isn't up against the cap and has obvious bad players in their lineup and stars in their minors I can see the need to step in, but it is still a sticky situation to determine who is bad and who is a star considering all the stats we use. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 21, 2015 14:54:16 GMT -5
I also agree under the spirit of the rule Letang should be dressed if it can be done in a way that does not cause Will to lose players to waivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Oct 21, 2015 14:57:31 GMT -5
I see no reason why a team can't tank all year. Sure it'd suck if a strong team did it in hopes of getting a Mcdavid for next year but there is a lottery and as long as the gm is active and does it all year to not screw with the schedule, it's fine with me.
My beef last year was that LIF did it against a team i was competing against, gifting that team like 7 points, as it turned out it didn't make a difference in my awesome 16th place finish but it could have.
Tank or not, if your best players are in the minors day 1, leave them there all year. Unless you have a true legitimate reason. Berglund is down for cap and simplicity reasons, he'll be back up soon just hope it's not too late
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 15:01:45 GMT -5
If you start the year with Kessel in your minors, Ott in your lineup, and you are 20 million under the cap...sorry, that is not going to pass the sniff test.
That being said, my belief is that the best way to address tanking (and the MOST objective way) is simply to (as much as we can) eliminate the incentive. And the best way to do that is to follow the new NHL draft lottery. There will be a lottery this year for 1st, 2nd and 3rd pick. The worst place team can fall all the way to fourth place in the draft. If someone wants to tank, go nuts...just realize, no guarantee on a top 3 pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 21, 2015 15:05:54 GMT -5
If you start the year with Kessel in your minors, Ott in your lineup, and you are 20 million under the cap...sorry, that is not going to pass the sniff test.
That being said, my belief is that the best way to address tanking (and the MOST objective way) is simply to (as much as we can) eliminate the incentive. And the best way to do that is to follow the new NHL draft lottery. There will be a lottery this year for 1st, 2nd and 3rd pick. The worst place team can fall all the way to fourth place in the draft. If someone wants to tank, go nuts...just realize, no guarantee on a top 3 pick.
What about a situation where they are both active and you choose to bench Kessel over Ott and it turns out to be a smart move, is that tanking? There will always be GMs looking to lose and exploit loopholes and I see it more in other leagues and this league isn't that bad for it. I'd be fine with switching the draft odds too |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 15:11:11 GMT -5
If you start the year with Kessel in your minors, Ott in your lineup, and you are 20 million under the cap...sorry, that is not going to pass the sniff test.
That being said, my belief is that the best way to address tanking (and the MOST objective way) is simply to (as much as we can) eliminate the incentive. And the best way to do that is to follow the new NHL draft lottery. There will be a lottery this year for 1st, 2nd and 3rd pick. The worst place team can fall all the way to fourth place in the draft. If someone wants to tank, go nuts...just realize, no guarantee on a top 3 pick.
What about a situation where they are both active and you choose to bench Kessel over Ott and it turns out to be a smart move, is that tanking? There will always be GMs looking to lose and exploit loopholes and I see it more in other leagues and this league isn't that bad for it. I'd be fine with switching the draft odds too
It depends on the context, but it's borderline. WHen LIF benched Backstrom last year, I don't believe he was doing it to try to win. In any event, perhaps we just agree that we don't want to be a micro-managing league, and that the best solution is to address via draft lottery. And, if something especially egregious comes up, address it as a one-off. You'll never get a perfect rule on this. But in your example, my concern is when that situation happens and a guy like kessel is benched at the end of the season, after being in the line up all year. I see why this upset CGS last year, that move could have cost him a playoff spot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 15:12:39 GMT -5
just throw the obvious ones into the lineup for prior weeks....Letang and any legit nhlers. I doubt there will be much debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 21, 2015 15:16:56 GMT -5
What about a situation where they are both active and you choose to bench Kessel over Ott and it turns out to be a smart move, is that tanking? There will always be GMs looking to lose and exploit loopholes and I see it more in other leagues and this league isn't that bad for it. I'd be fine with switching the draft odds too
It depends on the context, but it's borderline. WHen LIF benched Backstrom last year, I don't believe he was doing it to try to win. In any event, perhaps we just agree that we don't want to be a micro-managing league, and that the best solution is to address via draft lottery. And, if something especially egregious comes up, address it as a one-off. You'll never get a perfect rule on this. But in your example, my concern is when that situation happens and a guy like kessel is benched at the end of the season, after being in the line up all year. I see why this upset CGS last year, that move could have cost him a playoff spot. My thoughts are similar in that I don't want to micro manage and don't see any anti-tanking rule that is going to fix everything since there is no way to word a rule that will solve all the problems. If anyone thinks there is feel free to write one up and I will play devil's advocate and attempt to come up with ways to exploit it if I were tanking. The adjustment to draft odds could help and will be discussed so thanks for bringing that up. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 21, 2015 15:21:18 GMT -5
just throw the obvious ones into the lineup for prior weeks....Letang and any legit nhlers. I doubt there will be much debate. Who do you remove from his lineup when you don't have the benefit of hindsight and all his players dressed are NHLers. It's easy to look at Schmidt and Etem now and say those two, but perhaps the GM thought highly of them going into week 1. Not trying to argue on Will's behalf either that he should get to keep Letang in the minors just pointing out that it's a sticky situation to decide who to dress and bench retroactively when we now have the benefit of seeing their stats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 15:24:03 GMT -5
I think similar to ADHL, a blanket statement that dressing an optimal lineup at all times is required. And if anyone points out a possible issue, the admin team looks into it and the GM has an opportunity to explain his lineup choices to them before they determine whether there should be sanctions or not.
There will never be a concrete rule that prevents any and all loopholes unles we have a lawyer draft something up which is why I'm a big fan of case by case basis while affording the GM an opportunity in private with the admin team to explain the move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 15:26:55 GMT -5
just throw the obvious ones into the lineup for prior weeks....Letang and any legit nhlers. I doubt there will be much debate. Who do you remove from his lineup when you don't have the benefit of hindsight and all his players dressed are NHLers. It's easy to look at Schmidt and Etem now and say those two, but perhaps the GM thought highly of them going into week 1. Not trying to argue on Will's behalf either that he should get to keep Letang in the minors just pointing out that it's a sticky situation to decide who to dress and bench retroactively when we now have the benefit of seeing their stats. I don't think anyone can safely argue that Schmidt should be in a lineup over Letang with 0 health rumors/news. JayBo, Tyutin, Schultz are the only 3 on his roster right now that I'd even listen to an argument over Letang for, and even still, none of them would really pass a valid argument to be starting over a healthy Letang. Etem or someone in over Wennberg I'm fine with, that's a gut call move, no issue there even if Wennberg would be the better player to roster. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 21, 2015 15:29:16 GMT -5
I think similar to ADHL, a blanket statement that dressing an optimal lineup at all times is required. And if anyone points out a possible issue, the admin team looks into it and the GM has an opportunity to explain his lineup choices to them before they determine whether there should be sanctions or not. There will never be a concrete rule that prevents any and all loopholes unles we have a lawyer draft something up which is why I'm a big fan of case by case basis while affording the GM an opportunity in private with the admin team to explain the move. I'm fine with something like this too. All I was trying to do in past posts is point out that making up a rule isn't going to work. |
|
