The "It's time to get a CBA done" Thread - Input Required!!

[Fraser]

No I am talking about a consistent process that applies to eveyone to determine if a motive is present for worsening ones lineup. In your case there would have been one, and then it would have been a CC made decision, something that would be near impossible to set a complete standard around.

But in Mik's case it wouldn't have made it though the motive screen in the appeal process. You both were put under the same process. You had a motive, he didn't.

This is what Im suggesting.

For this I think its pretty simple. You are the manager of your team, and ultimately in any sort of grey area decision making in terms of roster management you give a lot of leniency to the Manager. But I think there should be laid out official appeal process to a CC member, if someone feels that there is a league member who is intentionally worsening their lineup. Main considerations to give to this appeal in order.

1) Is this person currently out of the playoff race?
2) Has this person been taking a dramatic fall in the standings?
3) Does this person hold their 1st and/or 2nd round draft pick?
4) Are there any other CC determined indicators that foul play could be present?

Only if the answer is yes to 2 out of 4 of these questions does the appeal process continue.

At this point it becomes difficult to regulate. But if someone is for example well out of the playoff race, and hold their first round pick. And they have a proven scorer or proven goaltender sitting on the bench I think at the CC's discretion they can determine if lineup adjustments are necessary.

I feel that this would be enough of an official layout to address the rare instances where someone may be accused of intentionally worsening their lineup.

[Lee]

Yea gonna have to express my agreement with the masses on this one too. Its why I would suggest that we amend the CBA with the rule surrounding this to be looking for a worsening of the lineup with a motive present.

Looking at these two cases.

Lee someone feels that you have intentionally worsened your lineup and reports it to the CC. They then look for a possible motive. They see you are out of the playoff race, and they see you are holding your 1st and 2nd round picks. Because of this there is a possible motive to worsen ones lineup. The appeal process continues and at their discretion they can decide if your best lineup is iced.

In Miks case. You think he has intentionally worsened his lineup and make an appeal. While he does hold his 1st round pick, he isn't out of the playoff race race (in the playoffs), isn't falling in the standings, and no other indication of foul play. The appeal process moves no further.

I outlined this line of thinking in the OP

I'd be fine with the ruling if there were some guide lines.

My example of this is late in the season when Carolina was dressing Khudobin over Ward. At that point, would I be able to dress Khudo in a single goalie situation over Ward? At what point would I be able to dress Ward over Khudobin again?

There were never any guidelines. The only reasoning and response I've been give was " No, fuck you Lee. The CC decides and that's that".

That is not good enough.

[Lee]

Lee man, you're wrong. drop it. You're just trolling one of the highest contributing BBKL members. He is consistently clear in his decision making and regularly supports motions which inconvenience the management of his own team. He explained the logic behind is goalie move. It's the intention of trying to lose that MUST be avoided, and you were by far the biggest offender. If that feels personal at you than good, stop being the loop-hole guy who requires a CBA written by a team of lawyers and wants a chance to defend against rulings based on the position of a comma.

If everyone acted like you, hell if 5 GMs acted like you, this place would die.

No, I'm trolling , in your opinion, because I disagree with your opinion. That is not trolling. That is having a different opinion than you.

To me, this is a matter of the CC sticking up for their own.

I'm not in the CC.

Your tag says otherwise as does your position in the CC at the time..

My intent was never to have you step down, if you were willing to do the work necessary.

[Lee]

Give me guidelines. Give me something to go by and I will never mention this ever again. That's all I ask.

[Fraser]

Yea gonna have to express my agreement with the masses on this one too. Its why I would suggest that we amend the CBA with the rule surrounding this to be looking for a worsening of the lineup with a motive present.

Looking at these two cases.

Lee someone feels that you have intentionally worsened your lineup and reports it to the CC. They then look for a possible motive. They see you are out of the playoff race, and they see you are holding your 1st and 2nd round picks. Because of this there is a possible motive to worsen ones lineup. The appeal process continues and at their discretion they can decide if your best lineup is iced.

In Miks case. You think he has intentionally worsened his lineup and make an appeal. While he does hold his 1st round pick, he isn't out of the playoff race race (in the playoffs), isn't falling in the standings, and no other indication of foul play. The appeal process moves no further.

I outlined this line of thinking in the OP

I'd be fine with the ruling if there were some guide lines.

My example of this is late in the season when Carolina was dressing Khudobin over Ward. At that point, would I be able to dress Khudo in a single goalie situation over Ward? At what point would I be able to dress Ward over Khudobin again?

There were never any guidelines. The only reasoning and response I've been give was " No, fuck you Lee. The CC decides and that's that".

That is not good enough.

Lets stop looking to the past and start talking about how were gonna shape it to make it better for the future.

For it to be completely regulated past a motive phase would just be ridiculous, there are far too many variables that would have to be all inputted to create a standardized worsened roster formula. When it is something that can be so obvious to the eye.

If someone reports you for not playing your best lineup. And If you have a potential motive to worsen your lineup. And the majority of people think it isn't your best lineup in the CC. Odds are it isn't your best lineup.

But we are wasting so much time on a part of this that really should be able to be summarized in two words "don't tank".

[Nick]

You accused me of protecting Mik because I'm in the CC. it's incorrect, it's rude and it's a very personal comment that you shouldn't make without truly feeling that way.

You have an incorrect premise is the basis for your argument versus Mik for goalie dressing. The CC moving forward is entirely correct to ignore your continued protest.

We are 30 guys trying to run a fun hockey league. If you want to win by loop-holes and are comfortable morally pointing at the rules and saying, " I'm not wrong according to ..." some out of context portion of the CBA I think that's a terrible example of how to be a good BBKL member, and one I doubt you'd encourage anyone else to take.

[Lee]

I'm all for looking forward. You are only kidding yourself if you think I want to make the league a worse place, I don't want to discuss this further. I want fairness and consistency.

This league has no place in it's official decision for bias, favoritism and opinion.

Give me some guide lines for when I can dress one goalie over another and I will never mention this again. I will not bring it up even if Mik did not meet those guide lines.

[Fraser]

I'm all for looking forward. You are only kidding yourself if you think I want to make the league a worse place, I don't want to discuss this further. I want fairness and consistency.

This league has no place in it's official decision for bias, favoritism and opinion.

Give me some guide lines for when I can dress one goalie over another and I will never mention this again. I will not bring it up even if Mik did not meet those guide lines.

To this I would say pretty simply. You are the manager of your team, its ultimately your decision what your best lineup is and which goalies play when.

But in the very rare instance, that someone feels that you are intentionally worsening your lineup you might get reported.

If this happens the CC would screen your situation for a motive. No apparent motive. Appeal stops there. It's your team do what you want.

But if someone reports you and there is an apparent motive. Now the CC has to make a judgement call, if the majority of them feel that you could have a better lineup you have to abide by that decision.

It is an incredibly rare scenario, and a near impossible one if you are genuinely icing your best roster. Such a small % of occurring it really isn't worth tearing apart any further.

[Fraser]

And I'm being fairly forward with this whole motive screener proposal of mine. Not trying to make it sound like fact already, but I think it works quite well in putting this one to bed.

[Lee]

This league has no place in it's official decision for bias, favoritism and opinion.

[Fraser]

This league has no place in it's official decision for bias, favoritism and opinion.

So once someone has been reported for worsening their lineup intentionally, a motive has been determined, and the majority of the CC voted it so. What would this statistical formula that you want implemented to be the saving grace for this wrongly accused man?

[Fraser]

I'm not saying its impossible but it will take an absolutely incredible amount of work to accomplish. And it will surely be the first of its kind. If you want to devote an insane amount of time to do this I say be my guest.

[Lee]

This league has no place in it's official decision for bias, favoritism and opinion.

So once someone has been reported for worsening their lineup intentionally, a motive has been determined, and the majority of the CC voted it so. What would this statistical formula that you want implemented to be the saving grace for this wrongly accused man?

It wouldn't place priority of someone who has played one game in the last month over someone who had played 5, as a starting rule.

[Fraser]

This league has no place in it's official decision for bias, favoritism and opinion.

So once someone has been reported for worsening their lineup intentionally, a motive has been determined, and the majority of the CC voted it so. What would this statistical formula that you want implemented to be the saving grace for this wrongly accused man?

It wouldn't place priority of someone who has played one game in the last month over someone who had played 5, as a starting rule.

You are looking at this from the wrong way. The rule was made for intentional worsening of the lineup. Not restricting our own powers as general managers to make our own decisions about our teams.

If we start setting up all these kind of restrictions, we no longer have full power over what we decide is our best lineup. I don't think that is how we want to morph this league.

If everyone plays honestly this is a total non-issue.

Even if you maintain that sitting your starting goaltender was your assessment of your best lineup that week, and the CC overruled it, Im very sorry that happened to you.

But that was an absolute anomaly, in what we can set up as a rigorous step by step process going forward that requires multiple parties in agreement and defined motives being present to get to that kind of decision being made again. But since you have made so many moves to get yourself out of the basement, I'm sure you will be able to sit whoever you see fit going forward, as an appeal made against you will not make it past the motive screener.

It clear your very upset that the CC overpowered your ability to creatively ice what your saw as your best lineup during that week, but you have to see what an absolute long shot something like that would be to happen to someone honestly putting their best lines out there again.

[Lee]

The ability to make my lineup worse is something I should absolutely have. I've never denied that dressing Khudo over Ward was an attempt to lose.

NHL teams tank. That was blatantly obvious this year, yet they are not fined or reprimanded. Instead, a new rule is created to give all non playoff teams a more even chance to win the lottery.

The fact is that I was still dressing an active NHL goaltender. Darling was an active NHL goaltender. I could understand the ruling if I had only dressed Drew McIntyre, who was in the AHL at the time.

The CC was is and remains wrong in this case.

[Fraser]

Well I believe it is the stance of the BBKL that intentional tanking ruins the integrity of this league. I fully agree that having teams intentionally worsening themselves, ruins the schedule from a matchup standpoint. Unlike the real NHL we can take it to extremes that they can't and won't do. They don't sit better players on the bench mid season for worse ones.. Re-building and the worsening of ones lineup can still be achieved through trades, like the NHL.

It appears we have reached the root of this disagreement. And I don't see the league stance budging on this.

[Lee]

NHL teams bench their goalies intentionally. They play their best goalies against good teams and their back up against worse teams. Maybe in a different order if they are trying to lose.

My proposal would be to allow teams to play goalies in a single goalie situation as long as you can prove that they are currently in the NHL.

To me, that would remove opinion and the entire core of my argument and be an amicable solution to this problem.

[Fraser]

Your goalies don't need week off rests in the BBKL to re-coup their fantasy energy.

We are talking about a rule put in place to stop intentional worsening of lineups.

[Lee]

The idea of worsening a line up is subjective when you are talking about splitting 2 people between 3-4 GP a week, factoring in back to back games, match ups etc.

My proposed solution offers the least bias.

[Fraser]

The idea of worsening a line up is subjective when you are talking about splitting 2 people between 3-4 GP a week, factoring in back to back games, match ups etc.

My proposed solution offers the least bias.

No your proposed solution offers a window for the intentional worsening of lineups. Your intention that you just stated a couple posts ago. Let's stop beating around the bush and pretend that this isn't the problem you have. Why not debate the point head on.