HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

12-13 HFBoards Yahoo Fantasy Premier Keeper League - Part 4: Locked Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2012, 01:18 PM
  #76
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,599
vCash: 883
early game today. WTF??!?

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 01:19 PM
  #77
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
early game today. WTF??!?
President's Day apparently...

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 01:29 PM
  #78
parabola
Global Moderator
novus ordo seclorum
 
parabola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ಠ_ಠ
Posts: 40,017
vCash: 500
Benching 14 PIM isn't fun.

__________________
parabola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 02:09 PM
  #79
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Holy crap, there's a lot for me to read through. I've got a busy day today so I probably won't get around to putting my two cents in on everything said until tomorrow.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 03:10 PM
  #80
parabola
Global Moderator
novus ordo seclorum
 
parabola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ಠ_ಠ
Posts: 40,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by parabola View Post
Benching 14 PIM isn't fun.
Neither is 24 PIM.

parabola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 03:14 PM
  #81
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Couple of rookies are available for picks:

Derek Stepan (Rookie), 12Gs, 26As, +23, 10 PIMs, 9PPPs, 125Shots
(7 pts in the last 8 games)
Matt Read (Rookie), 16Gs, 18As, +10, 6PIMs, 8PPPs, 122Shots
(Calder eligible thus rookie eligible)

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 04:29 PM
  #82
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500

BrockH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 04:54 PM
  #83
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,599
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by parabola View Post
Neither is 24 PIM.

LiquidSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 05:50 PM
  #84
parabola
Global Moderator
novus ordo seclorum
 
parabola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ಠ_ಠ
Posts: 40,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post

parabola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:53 PM
  #85
Trends Analyst
Across the Universe
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,558
vCash: 500
Who wants Teemu Selanne?

Trends Analyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:56 PM
  #86
ubiquitous
More like Shredder
 
ubiquitous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,494
vCash: 500
Might be trading Bobby Ryan, get your offers in.

ubiquitous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 12:45 AM
  #87
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
In addition to the rookies available:
Marleau's on the block for rentals and/or picks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
Couple of rookies are available for picks:

Derek Stepan (Rookie), 12Gs, 26As, +23, 10 PIMs, 9PPPs, 125Shots
(7 pts in the last 8 games)
Matt Read (Rookie), 16Gs, 18As, +10, 6PIMs, 8PPPs, 122Shots
(Calder eligible thus rookie eligible)


Last edited by CRDragon: 02-21-2012 at 01:03 AM.
CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 09:52 PM
  #88
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
My take:

Regarding the spot start rule. I think a player is acquired or dropped when Yahoo counts that effective. That is to say, at midnight PST. I don't think you can count a player as acquired at noon on Friday if he's still not available to play at 7pm that day. Likewise, I don't think you can count a player as dropped at noon on Sunday when you still have the option to play him at 7pm that evening. With that in mind, I would view 'Sunday' adds as taking effect at 12:00am on Monday morning, and thus part of the following week. It also means that the 48 hour clock starts ticking at 12:00am following the managers addition of the player (i.e. when he shows up on your roster). In this case, Desharnais was added at 12:00am on Friday morning. His drop was effective at 12:00am Monday morning. By using the midnight PST add/drop times, we will never run into a case where the start/end of a game matters (since all games are done by midnight PST). In this case, since Desharnais was on his roster for more than 48 hours after the Friday night game (all day Saturday and Sunday), then he would not be considered a spot start.

Regarding the maximum of 3 adds. We definitely agreed that Sundays would count. I know, because I pushed hard for them to be excluded (since it's the start of a fresh week) and lost that argument. However, I'm not sure that we ever specified which week they would be included in. However, given my argument for adds/drops being effective after midnight the following morning, this would mean that if a manager picks up a player, that add/drop isn't actually counted until the following morning. In the case of an add on Sunday, this means the add counts at 12am Monday morning.
Reading this, I feel like we've made it way too convoluted and confusing with the whole "spot start" rule being included on top of the add/drop rule. I'd actually propose eliminating the "spot start" rule altogether and just going forward with a cap of 3 add/drops a week with no other stipulations. It makes it far less confusing. Obviously add/drops for injuries wouldn't count, but I think the "spot start" rule in particular is what's making this so confusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
As for adding an injured player, and then adding another player immediately after, I would still consider that one instance. The rule is regarding add/drops. To me that has to involve an add and a drop (otherwise we should have said 6 add/drops; 3 adds and 3 drops). In this case, he dropped 1 player, and added 2 players. With only 1 drop, it only counts as one add/drop in my eyes. I think this is a lot more ambiguous though, and would say the rule as written is pretty open to interpretation. In a case like that, I'd say the right measure is to give it a pass this time and clarify the ambiguity. FYI, the rule added was:
Are you in favour of adding the following to the already existing add/drop and streaming rules:

Each manager is allotted a maximum of three add/drops per week. Add/drops in the case of player injury do not count towards the weekly limit. The add/drop limit will reset each week on Monday at 12:00:01 am PST.
Yes. I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
Here's my proposed wording for clarification. I've bolded the modifcations I made:
Part 1 – Add/Drops cap
a. Teams will be granted a maximum of 1 skater spot start per week, and 2 goalie spot starts per week. Spot starts are defined as picking up a player, starting the player in a game within 48 hours of being acquired, and releasing the player within 48 hours of that game's finish.
b. If the player being dropped is expected to be scratched (due to injury or coaches decision – an external source is needed for verification), then the replacement player will not be considered a spot start even if they otherwise meet the criteria in (a).
c. Each manager is allotted a maximum of three add/drops per week. Add/drops in the case of player injury do not count towards the weekly limit. To count as an add/drop the manager must both drop a player from his lineup and add a replacement player. Simply adding a player (without dropping another) does not count as an add/drop. The add/drop limit will reset each week on Monday at 12:00:01 am PST.
d. For the purposes of this section, adds/drops are considered to be effective at the time that they show up on the Yahoo roster (i.e. at midnight PST following the add/drop request made by the manager).

The wording looks fine, except I still maintain we need to eliminate the "spot start" portion of the rule. I don't see why we need it if we cap add/drops anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
Here's some proposed wording changes for Article 9 to reflect the commissioners having the first call. It was a bit more of an overhaul so it's not just a case of bolding added stuff:

ARTICLE 9: DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
a. Any league member that violates the rules or spirit set out in this CBA will be subject to discipline at the discretion of the commissioners.
b. Any league member can file a complaint with the commissioners for their review.
c. The commissioners’ decision will be open to formal appeal. Such an appeal should be posted in the HFBoards thread in a professional manner, and will be reviewed by the tribunal.
d. In cases where there is a conflict of interest, tribunal members will recuse themselves and be replaced by a league member. The league member will be selected by the remaining tribunal members. Tribunal members should avoid discussing the penalty until they have formed a complete panel.
e. The three member panel must reach a majority decision. In a case where all 3 panel members are split, then all 3 options will be put forward for a league vote (the penalized party and tribunal members excluded from the vote). Once a decision has been reached the panel’s decision will be binding and without appeal except in cases where there is grievance filed due to a conflict of interest.
f. A grievance may be raised against the tribunal only if impartiality is concerned. If such a grievance is raised, it is to be done via a posting in the HFBoards thread in a professional manner.
g. The commissioners shall jointly determine the validity of the grievance. A grievance is accepted unless the commissioners unanimously reject it (i.e. if one commissioner sees it’s merit, then it is considered valid).
h. If the party filing the grievance believes that both commissioners are also in a conflict of interest, then they must state so in their initial filing (i.e. before the commissioners pass their ruling), in which case the grievance will bypass both the tribunal and the commissioners and go to a league vote.
i. In a case such as (f), the party filing the grievance must propose their own outcome. This is to be part of their grievance filing. Once the grievance has been posted, all league members except for the accused and the 3-member panel will have 48 hours to publically vote in the forum thread. The vote will be either for the panel, in which case the ruling is upheld, or for the accused, in which case their proposed alternative penalty (if any) would be used.
j. In the case of (h), the voters will be directed to vote for the accused’s alternate penalty if and only if they perceive a conflict of interest and believe the accused has proposed the more reasonable penalty. The purpose of a grievance is not to seek a second opinion because you don’t like the panel’s decision. It is only to be used in a case where a conflict of interest existed and the panel members failed to recuse themselves, resulting in a biased decision.
Looks good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
Hang on there...the second change should be effective with the 2013-2014 season, not next year. Here was the original wording in the CBA that I was supposed to modify the current one to reflect (see thread Part II posts 15 & 17):


This rule change has a strategic impact in my opinion. It devalues wingers and increases the value of centers because there are now more slots so having to bench a center is less of an issue (you can run with 3 elite centers and never bench any of them). I want the extra year to adjust my strategy (e.g. move one of or possibly both Perry & Ovechkin).

We voted to change from 8 keepers to 7 before the 2011-2012 draft which is why that rule change goes into effect next season.

If needed, please consider this my formal appeal for a league vote. If 33.3% of the league feels that the addition of a utility slot has a strategic impact, it should not be in-place until the 2013-14 season.
I forgot about that portion of the CBA, and I don't think we need a vote for this. It pretty clearly does have strategic impact. The UTIL spot should not be added until the season following the next one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
Updated CBA with the included CBA change guidelines and scoring section that was meant to be added. It needs some work on formatting but I think everything is in there. Bottom line is, per 1 version of the CBA you need a unanimous vote during the season to change the CBA (and didn't get it). Per the other version (which I believe was the agreed upon version, although the change was never implemented) you need a 2/3s vote, but it doesn't go into effect until after the next draft if it has a strategic impact. Either way, this change shouldn't be in place next year.
I agree with you.

As for the proposed punishment to Sel, my opinion is it is rescinded to a final warning because of how confusing this all is right now. It's pretty clear Sel isn't the only one that isn't clear on how the rule is supposed to work as we're all offering varying opinions. We need to figure out how to better word it/fix it so that it's a lot more clear and we don't run into these problems again in the future (or at least are better prepared to handle it).

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:19 PM
  #89
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
Adding an already injured player should count as one add.
Later you would just put him on IR and pick up another player which also should be another add. This is because in the future, when you activate the injured player, you will have to drop one player..which completes the add/drop.
I would recommend it be counted as 2 add/drops in a case like this.
CCF, u agreed to Brock's opinion with regards to adding an injured player. I wonder if you have read my point of view and what your thoughts are on it.

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:22 PM
  #90
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
I think it gets too complicated when it's done that way considering that 2nd "add/drop" could take place over the course of a week or more. I think we need to keep it as simple as possible.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:27 PM
  #91
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
I think it gets too complicated when it's done that way considering that 2nd "add/drop" could take place over the course of a week or more. I think we need to keep it as simple as possible.
How is it complicated? Adding a player already on IR?
It's 2 adds. 1 2.

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:31 PM
  #92
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Sorry, I thought you meant it counts as 2 when you dropped someone to activate the IR listed player.

Honestly, I don't care either way how we count it, we just need to make a decision.

I also would like to again mention that I don't think we should punish sel in light of all the confusion. Even though I think it's a case of him breaking the rules as the way they're written, I think it's clear enough that our rules regarding this issue right now are a little overcomplicated and not all that clear. With that in mind, I don't like the idea of punishing him at this point, and I think we need to fix the rule to make it clearer.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:33 PM
  #93
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
How is it complicated? Adding a player already on IR?
It's 2 adds. 1 2.
I don't think it's more complicated. It would just be a case of instead of saying "add/drop" you just say "add". The caveat I would have though, is consider the spirit of the rule. We're trying to avoid teams getting a GP advantage I think. If Player A is on the IR and Player B is not, then I get the exact same number of games by adding A then B as I would if I'd just added B. I think this one should come down to league consensus (do people want adding an injured player to count), but IMO there's no advantage gained and I'm fine with it.

As for the suggestion of removing the spot start portion of the rule...we can do that, but you're going to have people dropping 3 guys and adding 3 new ones to max out GP on Sundays then in a tight matchup. Are we okay with that?

BrockH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:36 PM
  #94
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
I don't think it's more complicated. It would just be a case of instead of saying "add/drop" you just say "add". The caveat I would have though, is consider the spirit of the rule. We're trying to avoid teams getting a GP advantage I think. If Player A is on the IR and Player B is not, then I get the exact same number of games by adding A then B as I would if I'd just added B. I think this one should come down to league consensus (do people want adding an injured player to count), but IMO there's no advantage gained and I'm fine with it.
Seems slight, but there might be an advantage to stashing an injured player.
In this case, Hornqvist is ok because he's been waiver fodder for the year...but players such as Markov which could potentially make a future impact.

I'd like to get a league consensus on this too.

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:37 PM
  #95
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
As for the suggestion of removing the spot start portion of the rule...we can do that, but you're going to have people dropping 3 guys and adding 3 new ones to max out GP on Sundays then in a tight matchup. Are we okay with that?
Ask Ubiq, LS, and Para.

I don't think we'll be ok with that. Spot start rule will have to stay.

I also agree to the final warning for SK. Walked a very fine line here...

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:38 PM
  #96
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRDragon View Post
Seems slight, but there might be an advantage to stashing an injured player.
In this case, Hornqvist is ok because he's been waiver fodder for the year...but players such as Markov which could potentially make a future impact.

I'd like to get a league consensus on this too.
Oh, I agree a player like Markov could make a future impact. But I don't think the impact is via a maxing out GP thing which I believe is the spirit of the rules in the streaming section.

BrockH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 10:44 PM
  #97
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrockH View Post
Oh, I agree a player like Markov could make a future impact. But I don't think the impact is via a maxing out GP thing which I believe is the spirit of the rules in the streaming section.
Ya, I guess it's somewhat two different topics...

Discussion from the rest of the league?

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 11:08 PM
  #98
Eddie Vedder
Registered User
 
Eddie Vedder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
How to deal with streaming:

Did they add more than 3 people in a single week?

Yes? They get penalized


No? Carry on

Eddie Vedder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 11:17 PM
  #99
CCF23
Registered User
 
CCF23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Richmond, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,519
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CCF23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder View Post
How to deal with streaming:

Did they add more than 3 people in a single week?

Yes? They get penalized


No? Carry on
This. This is what I'm saying. We need to simplify.

CCF23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 11:23 PM
  #100
CRDragon
¯\_(シ)_/¯
 
CRDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCF23 View Post
This. This is what I'm saying. We need to simplify.
How simplified? You still have to define the time period for a "week".

Sunday to Saturday = a week should be the case, considering Sunday adds is for the following week's matchups.

You can simplify it to a certain extent, but some details are required to clarify a clause.

CRDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.