Prospect Picks #3!

[Nos - Sharks]

You're a joke then Derrick and have successfully sucked the fun right out of the league. Congrats, I guess you got what you wanted. If this is how you want to conduct your league that's fine, I was under the impression that this was an equal share/opportunity league where the commish acted as mediator and not a nazi. Discussion, defence, and understanding of a decision should always be implemented. The fact that you choose to censor and ignore does not get rid of the actual problem, which is with you. I hope other managers can see that.

[Mark - Bruins]

i double checked the matchup and toronto "benched" a couple players that week (1/2 his team was sitting on the last day, too, which isn't obvious at all). both san jose and toronto benched players so its hard to say who would've actually "won" that week if everyone was playing.

personally, i think it comes down to two options: either both infractions will offset each other and the order stays (SJ #1 and Toronto #2) or both team should be penalized and have Vancouver with the #1 pick and then follow it with the current order (SJ at #2 and Toronto #3). there is still derrick's third option of just penalizing San Jose since Nos's actions seem to hold the most weight in this matter. with the 2nd option on the table, i think it might be a good idea to get the league's view on this since this is quickly snowballing into an issue for more than just the two teams currently involved.

[Nos - Sharks]

Thank you Mark, well fucking said.

[Ryan]

I think it should be both or neither, im unable to figure out how to check that specific week but it seems as if both may have benched which is not acceptable

[Derrick - Senators]

The "accidental" benching of players is not strictly the basis of the stripped picked. Premeditation via PM and disregard of my instruction and NAFHL rules is the basis. San Jose meets this criteria, Toronto does not. End of story.

[Nos - Sharks]

So because I benched players because Toronto did I get punished and Toronto doesn't? That makes no sense. I asked via PM to make sure, I did not do anything on purpose unless Toronto had done it, period.

[Mark - Bruins]

Apr 9, 2008 21:59:49 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I think it should be both or neither, im unable to figure out how to check that specific week but it seems as if both may have benched which is not acceptable

you have to go into san jose or toronto's lineup page on yahoo. then, manually click back the days to see their lineup on the days when they played each other (I think March 3 - 9). i'm pretty sure both teams benched players.

[Ryan]

ok well here is an idea issue a warning to both teams, and then go to those dates and add on the points that were benched and see who would of won

[Mark - Bruins]

Apr 9, 2008 22:07:49 GMT -5 Ryan said:

ok well here is an idea issue a warning to both teams, and then go to those dates and add on the points that were benched and see who would of won

i think what derrick's intent was is that this issue (benching players to get better draft picks) is such a major issue that a warning might not be enough. there has to be some kind of penalty or threat of penalty. it would be interesting to see who "would've" won the matchup if everybody played.

in theory, i agree with derrick that tanking is bad. not only is it an illegal way of getting a top pick, but it unbalances the league. it intentionally makes one team bad while unintentionally making their opponent better in the standings. this makes "tanking" a league-wide issue because multiple teams are effected in a chain reaction-type situation. this is why i think the league should vote on it.

[Derrick - Senators]

The fact that San Jose is lying about benching players now just furthers the guilt. San Jose benched players SIX of the seven days, AND benched players first on Monday when Toronto did not, contrary to San Jose's previous post.

The only day when Toronto appears to "bench" players is on the last night, Sunday. The only other day when players were on the bench was Tuesday, Jagr and Drury, and that was accounted for via an MSN conversation. Toronto was simply 5 minutes late and was not able to set his lineup. This is further exhibited by Jagr and Drury being on the bench in the exact same spots the previous night of Monday as well.

As stated in the original post, this is not the case for San Jose who was actively making roster moves and benching different players daily.

Also note, if the points were totalled up among benched players, San Jose would have won in a landslide and Toronto would still have 1st pick.


Sorry, the decision has been made, and made over a month ago.

[Mark - Bruins]

Apr 9, 2008 22:23:51 GMT -5 Derrick - Senators said:

The fact that San Jose is lying about benching players now just furthers the guilt. San Jose benched players SIX of the seven days, AND benched players first on Monday when Toronto did not, contrary to San Jose's previous post.

The only day when Toronto appears to "bench" players is on the last night, Sunday. The only other day when players were on the bench was Tuesday, Jagr and Drury, and that was accounted for via an MSN conversation. Toronto was simply 5 minutes late and was not able to set his lineup. This is further exhibited by Jagr and Drury being on the bench in the exact same spots the previous night of Monday as well.

As stated in the original post, this is not the case for San Jose who was actively making roster moves and benching different players daily.

Also note, if the points were totalled up among benched players, San Jose would have won in a landslide and Toronto would still have 1st pick.


Sorry, the decision has been made, and made over a month ago.

personally, i'm not arguing with your logic or justification. i'm just wondering if this is a league-wide vote-worthy matter or if it should be left to your sole discretion as commish.

[Ryan]

good call derrick im looking at the week my self and completely agree good call, the day Drury was benched he missed 1 goal But got a goal and three assists combined from the three active centers, and jagr would of gotten him not much and with the isles playing like they were i think it wasnt such a bad move if it was purposely done anyways.....good move derr

[Nos - Sharks]

A joke, but what can you do? I'm not the commish. I'm guilty but Toronto isn't when he benched players too. He's given the benefit of the doubt, I'm not, makes a lot of sense. Derrick's promise via IM to suck all the fun out of this league has started early. I can't wait to see what's next.

[Andrew]

I don't really want to get involved with this since I'm very biased in the matter, but since I'm on trial I guess I should voice my opinions.

Nos, your PMs to Derrick are kind of incriminating in my opinion, and your activity in the league is usually very high (or so I assume) and players being benched due to inactivity seems unlikely to me. Plus you addressed all of your benchings from hypothetical examples and "to counteract Andrew's benchings". It just seems a little much to me. The tit-for-tat logic makes plenty of sense for the Sunday since the matchup was so close, but not for the other benchings.

In regards to the two days where I benched players:

Jagr/Drury: As Derrick mentioned, he approached me about this on MSN and I explained I was late (I had a late lab most likely and either no laptop or a dead one). I missed the deadline to put them in by just a minute or two. If you check my roster for that day, you can see that I took Williams of the bench from the day before (Chicago had an 8pm start, the Rangers a 7pm start).

Sunday: Just for fun, let's look at my consistency for Sundays.

February 10: Benched Selanne, McDonald, Stempniak
February 17: Benched Jagr, Drury, Stempniak
February 24: Benched Rolston
March 2: Benched Drury, Jagr
March 9: Benched Arnott, Williams, Rolston, Jagr
March 16: Benched Malone, Umberger
March 23: No one benched
March 30: Benched Samuelsson, Eriksson, Jagr, Lehtinen
April 6: Benched Eriksson, Langenbrunner, Downie

So in the four weeks prior to and four weeks following our matchups (ie playoff schedule), only once did I properly set my Sunday lines. This isn't impressive I'll admit, but I like my sleep. And alcohol.

Just want to make it clear that I certainly was not throwing the week.

[Nos - Sharks]

So because you were late and consistently bench players on Sundays (inactivity) that's ok? What this says is that if I were to play all my players and you benched your players in this fashion it would be totally legit, which is wrong in my opinion. You're still benching players, GM incompetence is not an excuse since you can set lines ahead of time and not solely on the day. Is it also impossible to believe that I was disinterested in the last week before the playoffs? Is it impossible to believe that I saw you benching players and benched some back? The hypocrisy, double standards, and blatant favouritism is blinding in this league.

[Andrew]

As I said, it makes complete sense for you to bench your Sunday lines after seeing mine benched. Considering how close the matchup ended, you'd be crazy to start full lines against my half team. My point is simply that I was not intentionally benching my players, as you insinuated earlier. This was Sunday, the last day of the matchup, and you were doing it throughout the matchup so the "I saw you benching yours and benched some back" excuse doesn't fly.

"Is it also impossible to believe that I was disinterested in the last week before the playoffs?"

That's a possible excuse, but considering how much was on the line for you that week, it seems unlikely. Also, you say you were responding to my benching of players, so the disinterested excuse doesn't make sense, again. Look at the Wednesday roster, you have Lecavalier, Corvo, Smyth, Sturm benched. You then take Corvo off the bench for Thursday, but miss out on games from the other three even though you were obviously active enough to see they were playing.

"Why don't you check the players Andrew benched during that week? Jagr and Drury to name a few."

The word you're looking for is a "couple". Plus that was the only couple until the final day where our rosters offset each other anyway.

"Furthermore, having Crosby on the IR and him being activated for what? A game? Just because that happens doesn't mean I have to place him into my lineup right away, maybe I didn't have room, or was worried he wouldn't be back to normal?"

The Crosby argument is fine, except for the fact that you took him off the IR Wednesday sometime and chose not to put him in for his Thursday game. You chose to leave an open C and F slot instead, which could have been filled with players like Lecavalier, Sturm, or Smyth (to name a few) if you decided Crosby wouldn't be playing at his best.

"So because you were late and consistently bench players on Sundays (inactivity) that's ok?"

You missed my point, but that's fine. How can you dare to use your argument about being disinterested and inactive yourself and blame me for doing the same for one day? Granted it was the last day of the matchup, and I understand how that looks. But I was in the exact same boat as you in this matchup; there would have been the same incentives for inactivity and I was already statistically short of the playoffs.

"The hypocrisy, ... is blinding in this league."

Hmm.

Nos, I have to admit, I didn't even know you were benching players throughout the week. I was actively checking the matchup, but rarely do I take the time to investigate another team during the week to see who he's starting. I also didn't realize you had Winnipeg's pick at this time. And finally, like you, I didn't notice Derrick's decision until now (could have had attention called to it a little better to be fair). I have admired your competitiveness in the past and defended you for your sportsmanship as well. In the future, if you want to insult the way I manage my team and question my sportsmanship, don't expect me to respond kindly.

[Nos - Sharks]

I'm not trying to deliberately insult you, I'm fine with the way you managed your team, all I'm trying to get across is that we both benched players. It doesn't matter who was benched or how much, the fact remains we both benched players and if you can have it one way you have to have it the other way. Of course I'm going to come off pissed off, because I am, my pick has been given away with no just reason in my opinion. I apologize if I came off like a dick.

[Andrew]

Fair enough. What I think the real issue is is why are players getting benched?

1. Because of disinterest
I think it's fair to say that neither of us were disinterested with the results of this week, so this one doesn't really apply.

2. "Accidental" benching or laziness
This isn't a great excuse by any means, and it's hard to prove. I know that's why mine were benched, and you could say that's why yours were benched as well, but that's not entirely true.

3. Strategical benching with your teams' best interest
This only really applies to goaltenders, which I don't think happened to either of us. Crosby staying on the IR longer than usual is a fair move, although this only accounts for one game. Any other benching was not in the team's best interest since I lost the +/- category by nearly 20.

4. Response to the opponent benching players
You claim that factored into your decision to bench players, but that makes little sense aside from the Sunday bench. I could claim that my benching of players on Sunday was a response to your week long benchings, but it doesn't matter.

5. Benching players to tank your team
There's the difference. There is evidence that you were deliberately benching players, whereas I was not.

Tuesday: Lecavalier is added to the bench, regardless of the fact that he has a game. Sturm also stays on the bench, even though you had visited your team to make the Lecavalier-Legwand change.
Thursday: You visited your team to take Crosby off the IR but to put him on the bench. Furthermore, the player you dropped to activate Crosby would play a game on Thursday. And even though you checked your team to activate Crosby, you left three other players on the bench.
Saturday: You benched 3 players that had games. You can say that these were the same players on the bench as the day before and that you hadn't made it to your team, but you had visited your team, since you switched Lalime for Vokoun for Saturday's games.

And this is giving you the benefit of the doubt that you the Monday/Wednesday benchings were coincidences, and Sunday's was a response to mine. To answer your question from earlier, this is why I can understand Derrick giving me the benefit of the doubt over you. The "I did not do anything on purpose unless Toronto had done it, period" quote is a downright lie as well. You benched one player Monday, I benched two Tuesday, and then you unleashed an unholy barrage of benchings for the rest of the week.

[Nos - Sharks]

Apr 10, 2008 14:53:47 GMT -5 Andrew said:

The "I did not do anything on purpose unless Toronto had done it, period" quote is a downright lie as well. You benched one player Monday, I benched two Tuesday, and then you unleashed an unholy barrage of benchings for the rest of the week.

How is it a lie? You benched impact players in a match up for the first overall pick and I got pissed off and started to bench players back, period. The only fact that matters is that we both benched players, reason is incidental because you can't sit there and claim you knew what I was thinking or how I was operating my team. I was more than happy to play the week straight until you benched impact guys. Don't tell me I'm lying, I know exactly what happened even if nobody else sees it. Congrats on securing the first overall pick, I guess that's the reward for brown nosing the commish.

[Andrew]

Apr 10, 2008 20:25:16 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

How is it a lie? You benched impact players in a match up for the first overall pick and I got pissed off and started to bench players back, period. The only fact that matters is that we both benched players, reason is incidental because you can't sit there and claim you knew what I was thinking or how I was operating my team. I was more than happy to play the week straight until you benched impact guys. Don't tell me I'm lying, I know exactly what happened even if nobody else sees it. Congrats on securing the first overall pick, I guess that's the reward for brown nosing the commish.

It's getting increasingly tough to follow your logic... you're changing your story every other time you speak and contradicting yourself like a walking oxymoron. You tell me I can't "claim knew what [you were] thinking or how [you were] operating [your] team". Interesting. I'd like to see anybody go through the data I tossed up there and have them argue that you were not tossing the week. And it's funny that I can't claim to understand your expert managerial strategies, but you can read me like a book. I don't see how you benching a guy Monday and me having two guys benched Tuesday (accidentally as I've explained to both you and Derrick) translates to me throwing the first stone. If you're referring to the caliber of players that were on my bench, I can assure I could have benched better players than them.