Toronto Maple Leafs Draft Position

[Nos - Sharks]

So there's been some question about whether Andrew's draft position should be changed because of numerous benchings that went on throughout the course of the year. To clarify the rules explicitly stated in the rulebook...

4. No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.

IV) These actions include but are not limited to the intentional benching of players to alter draft pick order or else otherwise impede on another managers opportunity to obtain equality through natural occurrence. “Forgetting” to set your line-up is not a valid excuse.

Any manager who benches any player or any amount of players for more than 2 consecutive days, or 3 individual days total, will be subject to forfeiture of the asset in question and subsequent punishment as stated in the rulebook.

Derrick has said that there 'isn't enough evidence' to do anything. I say that's BS and it's, again, pretty cut and dry. Here are the facts...

1. Andrew benched numerous players throughout the course of the regular season.
2. This causes his team to drop further in the standings than if he were to play all of the games as usual. 'Natural' occurrence doesn't apply to him because of the stats he lost, especially considering the margin between bottom teams was so minute.
3. The rules are explicit, 'forgetting' to set your lineup is not a valid excuse as per the rulebook so let's eliminate that scapegoat. Any manager who benches any player or any amount of players for more than 2 consecutive days, or 3 individual days total, will be subject to forfeiture of the asset in question and subsequent punishment as stated in the rulebook.

Let's flash back a year, I'm facing Andrew at the end of the regular NAFHL season, I notice him benching a few key players so in return I bench some guys because I had already locked up first place in the league and there was the matter of my pick that I had acquired in a trade. Weeks later I'm told that my first overall selection had been forfeited because I benched some players that week, fine, but why does Andrew get off scott free a year later? Is this fair? Did he obtain his placement through natural occurrence? No. It is my opinion that he forfeits his pick, as per the rules, but not to be so harsh he should be able to pick at the end of the first round after everybody has selected.

The bottom line is this, had Andrew played out the season without any needless benchings he wouldn't have finished second last and wouldn't have the 2nd overall selection in the 2009 Entry Draft. Please consider all information before voting, thanks.

Here's a running tab I had put together for the benchings, I stopped keeping track around March but had noticed several more benched players after this date.

Saturday, February 28th

Benched: Brian Rolston (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 assist, +2, 1 shot

Sunday, February 15th

Benched: Scott Gomez (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -2, 2 shots

Friday, February 13th

Benched: Mike Modano (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, -1, 1 PPP, 2 shots

Friday, February 13th

Benched: Brian Rolston (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: +1, 3 shots

Friday, February 13th

Benched: David Krejci (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 shot

Monday, February 9th

Benched: Scott Gomez (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 4 PIM, 3 shots

Saturday, February 7th

Benched: Pavol Demitra (C, LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 assists, 2 PIM, 2 PPP, 1 shot

Wednesday, January 21st

Benched: Mike Modano (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 PPP, 2 shots

Wednesday, January 21st

Benched: Milan Hejduk (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 1 shot

Sunday, January 18th

Benched: Scott Gomez (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 PIM, 3 shots

Sunday, January 18th

Benched: Milan Hejduk (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 assist, +1, 1 PPP, 5 shots

Sunday, January 18th

Benched: Pavol Demitra {C, LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, +1

Thursday, January 15th

Benched: Mike Modano (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, -1, 1 PPP, 3 shots

Thursday, January 15th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 1 PPP

Monday, January 12th

Benched: Mike Modano (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 2 PIM, 1 shot

Monday, January 12th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 shot

Tuesday, January 6th

Benched: Ray Whitney (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, +1, 3 shots

Tuesday, January 6th

Benched: Daniel Cleary (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 4 shots

Tuesday, January 6th

Benched: David Krejci (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 3 shots

Thursday, January 1st

Benched: Pavol Demitra (C, LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: +1, 5 shots

Thursday, January 1st

Benched: Daniel Cleary (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 3 shots

Thursday, January 1st

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 2 shots

Sunday, December 21st

Benched: Ray Whitney (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 1 PPP, 3 shots

Saturday, December 20th

Benched: Daniel Cleary (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 GWG, 3 shots

Saturday, December 20th

Benched: Jason Arnott (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 5 shots

Saturday, December 20th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 2 PIM, 1 PPP, 3 shots

***Other options that same night that weren’t dressed...***

Saturday, December 20th

Benched: Mike Modano (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 shots

Saturday, December 20th

Benched: Ray Whitney (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, -2, 2 shots

Thursday, December 18th

Benched: Mike Modano (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 PIM, 1 shot

Thursday, December 18th

Benched: Ray Whitney (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 assists, 1 PPP, 2 shots

Thursday, December 18th

Benched: Daniel Cleary (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, +3

Thursday, December 18th

Benched: Jason Arnott (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 shots

Thursday, December 18th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 PIM, 3 shots

Sunday, December 14th

Benched: Jason Chimera (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: +1, 1 shot

Sunday, November 23rd

Benched: Jason Arnott (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 goals, +2, 4 PIM, 3 shots

Wednesday, November 5th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 2 shots

Tuesday, November 4th

Benched: Ryan Kesler (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 shots

Tuesday, November 4th

Benched: Sergei Samsonov (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 2 shots

Sunday, November 2nd

Benched: Ryan Kesler (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 4 shots

Sunday, November 2nd

Benched: Daniel Cleary (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 PIM, 4 shots

Sunday, November 2nd

Benched: Sergei Samsonov (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, -1, 2 PIM, 1 PPP, 1 shot

Tuesday, October 28th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 shots

Tuesday, October 28th

Benched: Sergei Samsonov (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 shot

Tuesday, October 28th

Benched: Steven Stamkos (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 1 PPP, 2 shots

Tuesday, October 28th

Benched: Ryan Kesler (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 4 shots

Thursday, October 9th

Benched: Daniel Cleary (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 5 shots

Total Discrepancies: 44 (+2 option)

[Derrick - Senators]

People are already voting and they haven't even heard both sides or the argument yet? Makes me wonder why I am even taking the time to make this post explaining the flawed logic in Nose's post, misplaced "facts," and reasons as to why the Draft order should not be altered.

May 11, 2009 10:38:45 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Here are the facts...

1. Andrew benched numerous players throughout the course of the regular season.
2. This causes his team to drop further in the standings than if he were to play all of the games as usual. 'Natural' occurrence doesn't apply to him because of the stats he lost, especially considering the margin between bottom teams was so minute.

Facts? This is just a bunch of nit-picking in a feeble attempt on your part to in some way gain any advantage you can. Yes, players were benched throughout the year. Did this cause Andrew's team to drop further in the standings? Absolutely not, and here is why.

First and foremost, I don't see a running tally of days where Winnipeg, Buffalo, or Vancouver or any other team for that matter who didn't set their lines (teams who didn't set their lineups just as much at times). Where are they? Not important because you cant benefit from those benchings, especially when those benchings happen during the weeks that these teams play you right? Let me give you some real facts.

1. Andrew as well as many other managers suffered from lack of activity at times during the season.
2. Several of the benchings in question happened when either Andrew or these other teams were playing your team. How come you weren't complaining then? That's right, because it was propelling you up the standings. So if these are to alter draft order now, then we must consider altering the final standings of the regular season to strip you of the points you gained from these benchings too, right?

Furthermore, I find it rather funny how you only "keep track of benchings up until February" yet add a clause stating "oh but i remember more benchings in March." It is also funny how you added this in after I detailed the entire case to you on MSN and how THERE WERENT ANY BENCHINGS post february as a result of me warning Andrew. This is significant in the fact that when it "mattered" (final two months of the season) Andrew did not bench players and even made moves via fee agency and the trade deadline to improve his team because he did not want to be seen as a "cheater."

Of course now, none of this can be cited or technically proved, since Yahoo has shut the league down and archived it. Anything from this point on is just based on a his word vs. his word type of thing.

Any manager who benches any player or any amount of players for more than 2 consecutive days, or 3 individual days total, will be subject to forfeiture of the asset in question and subsequent punishment as stated in the rulebook.

[/i][/quote]

Im not sure if you citing this rule helps your case or hurts it. Of all the cases you cite, at most, Andrew is in violation, only once, maybe twice. Make sure you understand what the rule is saying before you try and twist it to your favor. This point, the basis for your entire argument is rather irrelevant. Furthermore, this scenario and when you were stripped of your pick are in NO WAY the same or even comparable.

Let's flash back a year, I'm facing Andrew at the end of the regular NAFHL season, I notice him benching a few key players so in return I bench some guys because I had already locked up first place in the league and there was the matter of my pick that I had acquired in a trade. Weeks later I'm told that my first overall selection had been forfeited because I benched some players that week, fine, but why does Andrew get off scott free a year later? Is this fair? Did he obtain his placement through natural occurrence? No. It is my opinion that he forfeits his pick, as per the rules, but not to be so harsh he should be able to pick at the end of the first round after everybody has selected.

Yes, lets flashback. Use whatever qualifier it is you feel is necessary to make you appear like a saint and a victim of a flawed system, but the fact of the matter is, you were stripped of your pick because you can't seem to put a leash on your ego. You gloat and brag about how smart you are, and this ultimately ends up biting you in the ass. You were stripped of your pick because you ADMITTED to an elaborate plot to "steal" the pick away from Andrew via PM and IM (which is all cited in the previous thread). THAT is premeditation, that is with malintent, and that is to hamper others play. More importantly, that is a signed confession.

The major differences between these two completely different events are evident. In one case, there was a premeditated attempt to alter the draft order during the LAST WEEK(s) of play, whereas in this most recent case several benchings happened spread out over a number of weeks throughout the year and NONE during the final weeks where the order was determined naturally. Coupled with that fact that Andrew was issued a warning and moves were made to improve his team, the two are hardly comparable. The double standard of Nos calling for the draft order to be altered for Toronto but not any of the other teams who benched players during the year is telling. Not to mention the curious absence of how these benchings helped him throughout the year.

This is not a question of league integrity or "doing the right thing," this is a question of a greed. These so-called facts are nothing but speculation and have been presented to you as sugar coated falsities tailored by Nose to try and steal a draft position.

The bottom line is, there is no way to confirm or disconfirm any of these claims presented, other than the claims made concerning the thread detailing last years draft order issue, or saved PM's and IM's, whereas Yahoo has already archived the league for this past season.

You can accuse all you want, but without evidence, these "facts" are nothing but opinion and mere speculation. YOU HAVE ZERO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE FOR THESE CLAIMS. For all we know, you drew these wild ideations up last night to try and cheat. I am not saying that is the case, but you see where I am going with this. It is an attempt to put things in perspective.

We can sit here all day and talk about the "what if's" or try and twist different words around to fit different cause but the bottom line is, the scenarios you are comparing are in no way the same and these claims against Andrew are not punishable. If Andrew is guilty of anything, it is inactivity, or lack of interest, not involvement in a diabolical plot to steal a draft position. Face it, nobody is going to "Tank" an entire season from the onset for one little draft spot. The intent every year is to have fun, and WIN. This is just human nature.

You want to twist words around, try twisting your own. "It is my opinion that he forfeits his pick, as per the rules, but not to be so harsh he should be able to pick at the end of the first round after everybody has selected."

So in other words, "I don't care what happens just as long as I get what I want."
Why not say what you really mean? Itd be a lot easier for the fellow league mates you are trying to deceive to come to the right decision.

[Nos - Sharks]

May 11, 2009 15:26:17 GMT -5 Derrick - Senators said:

People are already voting and they haven't even heard both sides or the argument yet? Makes me wonder why I am even taking the time to make this post explaining the flawed logic in Nose's post, misplaced "facts," and reasons as to why the Draft order should not be altered.

Talk about your misinformation...

May 11, 2009 10:38:45 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Here are the facts...

1. Andrew benched numerous players throughout the course of the regular season.
2. This causes his team to drop further in the standings than if he were to play all of the games as usual. 'Natural' occurrence doesn't apply to him because of the stats he lost, especially considering the margin between bottom teams was so minute.

Facts? This is just a bunch of nit-picking in a feeble attempt on your part to in some way gain any advantage you can. Yes, players were benched throughout the year. Did this cause Andrew's team to drop further in the standings? Absolutely not, and here is why.

How is it nit-picking? How didn't it affect his place in the standings? How can you even argue that? Had he played all of his games like he should have he would not have been second last in the standings come the end of the year. That's a fact, nothing can dispute that but just for fun let's see what you have to say...

First and foremost, I don't see a running tally of days where Winnipeg, Buffalo, or Vancouver or any other team for that matter who didn't set their lines (teams who didn't set their lineups just as much at times). Where are they? Not important because you cant benefit from those benchings, especially when those benchings happen during the weeks that these teams play you right?

Andrew's benchings were the most obvious so I took notice. I also took notice because it would affect my, yes my, draft position. Silly me for looking out for my best interests, it's not my job to police the entire league, if other members want to voice a complaint about other managers benching players and it's a violation of league rules like Andrew's are, then by all means go for it and I'll support you every step of the way. These kinds of things have to stop happening.

Let me give you some real facts.

Ok Derr, let's see 'em.

1. Andrew as well as many other managers suffered from lack of activity at times during the season.

So what? Why do I care? Why is this relevant? Forgetting to set your lineup is not a valid excuse as per the rulebook, so again, let's get this scapegoat out of the way early. This is not my fault, I shouldn't be punished with a lower draft position because of it either.

2. Several of the benchings in question happened when either Andrew or these other teams were playing your team. How come you weren't complaining then?

Firstly, because I hadn't planned on bringing this up with the entire league until after the NAFHL playoffs had ended. I didn't want to take away from that, obviously. Secondly, I did bring this up to you in private many times throughout the year. I even brought it up when I was facing Andrew because that's what made me take notice. I don't want to win like that, nobody wants to win like that, it's weak for the league.

That's right, because it was propelling you up the standings. So if these are to alter draft order now, then we must consider altering the final standings of the regular season to strip you of the points you gained from these benchings too, right?

Absolutely. I'd love to see the actual regular season standings and I'm not bothered one bit about moving down the list, the outcome would be exactly the same. This is an irrelevant point.

Furthermore, I find it rather funny how you only "keep track of benchings up until February" yet add a clause stating "oh but i remember more benchings in March." It is also funny how you added this in after I detailed the entire case to you on MSN and how THERE WERENT ANY BENCHINGS post february as a result of me warning Andrew.

Really? No benchings?

Sunday, March 29th

Benched: Ryan Kesler (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 PPP, 1 shot

Sunday, March 29th

Benched: Pavol Demitra (C, LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 5 shots

Sunday, March 29th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 1 shot

Friday, March 27th

Benched: Brian Rolston (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 shots

Sunday, March 22nd

Benched: Andrew Ebbett (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 2 PIM, 1 PPP, 1 shot

Sunday, March 22nd

Benched: Brian Rolston (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 4 shots

Thursday, March 19th

Benched: Ryan Kesler (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, +1, 2 shots

Thursday, March 19th

Benched: Ryan Malone (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 4 PIM, 1 shot

Thursday, March 19th

Benched: Pavol Demitra (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: NA *No effect but added to illustrate another benched player and more potential points lost.

Monday, March 9th

Benched: Scott Gomez (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 4 PIM, 1 shot

Sunday, March 1st

Benched: Brian Rolston (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: +1, 2 shots

Sunday, March 29th was the last day Andrew had any games left, I included the playoffs. There's the complete list. So you warned Andrew with one month left of games and think this is justified? What about the 5 months before where he consistently benched players throughout? Do you see any change here? Less benchings? None as you said? No, you don't, it's pretty typical.

This is significant in the fact that when it "mattered" (final two months of the season) Andrew did not bench players and even made moves via fee agency and the trade deadline to improve his team because he did not want to be seen as a "cheater."

That's fine, I have no problem with Andrew, but this is not right. I want my true draft position and I'm sure everybody else would like that also. When it mattered Derrick? Really? 5 months had gone on with benchings, the damage had already been done to the regular season standings. Week 23: Mar 9 - Mar 15 was the last week of the regular season Derrick. You warned him with two weeks to go.

Of course now, none of this can be cited or technically proved, since Yahoo has shut the league down and archived it. Anything from this point on is just based on a his word vs. his word type of thing.

Of course it can be proven. Every single day can be viewed still, which I just went through to complete the list of benchings for you. I don't know where you got that from? Maybe you should check your facts before saying things.

Im not sure if you citing this rule helps your case or hurts it. Of all the cases you cite, at most, Andrew is in violation, only once, maybe twice. Make sure you understand what the rule is saying before you try and twist it to your favor.

Being in violation even once is too much Derrick and should be punished by what the rulebook cites.

Any manager who benches any player or any amount of players for more than 2 consecutive days, or 3 individual days total, will be subject to forfeiture of the asset in question and subsequent punishment as stated in the rulebook.

Did Andrew bench players for more than 2 consecutive days? Yes, even though that part is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rule 3 individual days total, which he had obviously done 50+ times.

This point, the basis for your entire argument is rather irrelevant. Furthermore, this scenario and when you were stripped of your pick are in NO WAY the same or even comparable.

Why is it irrelevant? How are the rules in the rulebook irrelevant? The two instances are absolutely comparable, especially considering it involved the same person. He benched, I retaliated, I got punished. I've taken my punishment, I accept my punishment, why shouldn't everybody else be held to the same standard? This is exactly the same.

Let's flash back a year, I'm facing Andrew at the end of the regular NAFHL season, I notice him benching a few key players so in return I bench some guys because I had already locked up first place in the league and there was the matter of my pick that I had acquired in a trade. Weeks later I'm told that my first overall selection had been forfeited because I benched some players that week, fine, but why does Andrew get off scott free a year later? Is this fair? Did he obtain his placement through natural occurrence? No. It is my opinion that he forfeits his pick, as per the rules, but not to be so harsh he should be able to pick at the end of the first round after everybody has selected.

Yes, lets flashback. Use whatever qualifier it is you feel is necessary to make you appear like a saint and a victim of a flawed system, but the fact of the matter is, you were stripped of your pick because you can't seem to put a leash on your ego.

What does having an ego have to do with getting my pick stripped? Are you admitting to malpractice? I got stripped of my pick because you feel my ego is out of control? Awesome.

You gloat and brag about how smart you are, and this ultimately ends up biting you in the ass.

What does this have to do with anything? Are you starting the character assassination to get people to side with you? Nos is such a bad guy, look at how cocky he is? Give me a break. I question the integrity of a Commish that uses such dirty politics.

You were stripped of your pick because you ADMITTED to an elaborate plot to "steal" the pick away from Andrew via PM and IM (which is all cited in the previous thread). THAT is premeditation, that is with malintent, and that is to hamper others play. More importantly, that is a signed confession.

The only thing I 'admitted' to was that I benched players in retaliation to Andrew's benchings. That's it. The last week I benched a few guys because I saw Jagr benched. I got punished, he did not, I accept that but I still fail to see why this same standard shouldn't be applied to everybody else. We're talking about this year.

The major differences between these two completely different events are evident. In one case, there was a premeditated attempt to alter the draft order during the LAST WEEK(s) of play,

Again, it was in retaliation, nothing more. Had Andrew played the week out legit I would have too. I asked you if you would do anything about Andrew and you didn't say anything. You gave your usual vague response and that was it. There's a sickening double standard here and there's you trying your best to make sure I don't get stronger. If this were Ryan arguing this point about his pick, you wouldn't say boo.

whereas in this most recent case several benchings happened spread out over a number of weeks throughout the year

Yup, they sure did, and it's against the rules and has to be punished.

and NONE during the final weeks

I've proven this to be false.

where the order was determined naturally.

Do you even know what 'determined naturally' means? You think that if he plays his guys in the last two weeks and benches guys for 5 months that it's 'natural'? That is flawed logic. He's still throwing away numerous points and it absolutely effects his draft position.

Coupled with that fact that Andrew was issued a warning and moves were made to improve his team, the two are hardly comparable.

You're right, this part isn't comparable because I didn't have the good fortune of a Commish warning me about my benchings. He simply kept quiet, opened up a thread and announced I had forfeited my asset. Funny how that works huh?

The double standard of Nos calling for the draft order to be altered for Toronto but not any of the other teams who benched players during the year is telling.

I'm calling for this because it was the most obvious and it affects my team, yeah. I've detailed this earlier but if other managers want to come out and feel they've been cheated of a draft position they rightfully should have they should absolutely come forward and say something. I would support it. I should be the one to voice all of these wrong doings? Why? Look at how much time I have to spend on just this one case, imagine more. I'm treating this as a court of law, I'm issuing my case, nothing more.

Not to mention the curious absence of how these benchings helped him throughout the year.

Helped me how Derrick? Honestly? Maybe I would have come in second place, so what? I still would have gotten a bye and perhaps even made it to the final, yeah, like you.

This is not a question of league integrity or "doing the right thing," this is a question of a greed. These so-called facts are nothing but speculation and have been presented to you as sugar coated falsities tailored by Nose to try and steal a draft position.

What a load of BS that is, for real. I've provided a concise argument and facts. You've resorted to character assassination, dirty politics and sick rule dodging to make 'sense' out of your side and get others to see your way. I'm greedy? Nah, I just want what's rightfully mine.

The bottom line is, there is no way to confirm or disconfirm any of these claims presented, other than the claims made concerning the thread detailing last years draft order issue, or saved PM's and IM's, whereas Yahoo has already archived the league for this past season.

Yahoo has not archived anything, it's all there, have a look.

You can accuse all you want, but without evidence, these "facts" are nothing but opinion and mere speculation. YOU HAVE ZERO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE FOR THESE CLAIMS.

lawl

For all we know, you drew these wild ideations up last night to try and cheat. I am not saying that is the case, but you see where I am going with this. It is an attempt to put things in perspective.

This is especially hilarious considering you know what happened, you looked into it yourself, you told me something was going to be done about it and I have PM's from you about it.



This proves that you knew about it, had looked into it, and saw it with your own eyes. To just look away or claim I'm 'making this up' is ridiculous. What perspective are you trying to impose here?

We can sit here all day and talk about the "what if's" or try and twist different words around to fit different cause but the bottom line is, the scenarios you are comparing are in no way the same and these claims against Andrew are not punishable. If Andrew is guilty of anything, it is inactivity, or lack of interest, not involvement in a diabolical plot to steal a draft position. Face it, nobody is going to "Tank" an entire season from the onset for one little draft spot. The intent every year is to have fun, and WIN. This is just human nature.

It's also about competition, why shouldn't I look out for my best interests? Why should I be punished a year earlier for benching a couple players and Andrew goes the whole year benching 50+? The rules are stated in clear English, let's follow them for once. You haven't said anything of value really, you've written up a long post with a lot of hearsay and dirty politics, yeah, I'm the only one that's provided facts to this discussion.

You want to twist words around, try twisting your own. "It is my opinion that he forfeits his pick, as per the rules, but not to be so harsh he should be able to pick at the end of the first round after everybody has selected."

So in other words, "I don't care what happens just as long as I get what I want."
Why not say what you really mean? Itd be a lot easier for the fellow league mates you are trying to deceive to come to the right decision.

How is that saying I don't care what happens? I gave a legit scenario that would follow the rules and work but also doesn't simply strip Andrew of his pick all together like the rulebook says should happen.

Anyway, this is a fairly ridiculous argument, I actually can't believe somebody sees it Derrick's way to be honest. Even Andrew would probably see what I'm saying if it weren't his pick in question. I'm sure the rest of the managers are smart enough to see through Derrick's shady plot to keep me weak. Thanks for reading.

[Ryan]

as for this I agree with Nos that something should be done, I expected him to be looking at teams to see if someone was not playing by the rules as he may have been a bit angry over his situation last season, and he rightfully should be now there may be others violating this same rule but I feel that something does need to be done to discourage anyone from doing this, if we keep saying that other people are doing this I beleive the league loses on this. for an example if someone is close to last next season and wants to tank they would think hey I have nothing to lsoe, nothing will happen to me......or would you rather them think well I can either make moves to help me for the future and lessen my chances this season and possibly get a better pick or I could bench players and risk losing my good pick altogether.

I believe if this continues it will mean no good, I feel the list provided by Nos is very lengthy and should definately warrant something, we should encourage other GM's to be looking for this type of thing because from one Commish to another I believe that yes the commish should be the complete ruler of the league but in still relatively new leagues there are still things that need to be worked out and I think with that any league needs the help of all GM's to do this, whether the help means advising the commish of offences or whether it means being an active GM and doing your part for the league by managing your team to the best of your ability.

Thanks,
Ryan

oh and Nos im not exactly sure what you mean by him not saying Boo if it was me saying what your saying, im sure derrick would stick to his guns no matter who he is talking with, I just think that other GM's should be involved in somethings.

[Derrick - Senators]

Perhaps you're just not getting it. Setting everything else aside for the moment, it seems as though you have a very contorted misconception on the definition of "fact." By my understanding, you believe a fact to be synonymous with an accusation, personal opinion, and perhaps even fabrication that can be validated by ones own confirmation.

I suppose this is where I am to post a cliche definition further proving my point. So let me define "fact" for you:

Fact: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

Furthermore, just so we are clear...

Evidence: The documentary and material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


All you have provided is a MAN-MADE list of possible days players were benched via PM and a forum post and this is FACT? If that is this case, then please, let me exhibit the following:


Days in which Nos benched players during the year:

Saturday, February 28th

Benched: Kris Versteeg (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 assist, +2, 1 shot

Sunday, February 15th

Benched: Vincent Lecavalier (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -2, 2 shots

Friday, February 13th

Benched: Mikko Koivu (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, -1, 1 PPP, 2 shots

Friday, February 13th

Benched: Rick Nash (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: +1, 3 shots

Friday, February 13th

Benched: David Krejci (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 shot

Monday, February 9th

Benched: Sidney Crosby (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 4 PIM, 3 shots

Saturday, February 7th

Benched: Todd Bertuzzi (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 assists, 2 PIM, 2 PPP, 1 shot

Wednesday, January 21st

Benched: Travis Zajac (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 PPP, 2 shots

Wednesday, January 21st

Benched: Jarome Iginla (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 1 shot

Sunday, January 18th

Benched: Travis Zajac (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 2 PIM, 3 shots

Sunday, January 18th

Benched: Kris Versteeg (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, 1 assist, +1, 1 PPP, 5 shots

Sunday, January 18th

Benched: Zach Parise (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, +1

Thursday, January 15th

Benched: Sidney Crosby (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, -1, 1 PPP, 3 shots

Thursday, January 15th

Benched: Rick Nash (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 assist, 1 PPP

Monday, January 12th

Benched: Mikko Koivu (C) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: -1, 2 PIM, 1 shot

Monday, January 12th

Benched: Travis Zajac (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 shot

Tuesday, January 6th

Benched: Travis Zajac (LW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 1 goal, +1, 3 shots

Tuesday, January 6th

Benched: Jarome Iginla (RW) [open roster spot]

Points Lost: 4 shots

While I can not "prove" this, you can not disprove these claims so they must be fact because I posted it as such on the forum without evidence. Do you get the point?

The only FACT here is that you can not post one screen shot or any other documentation otherwise that PROVES your accusations. All you have is a list, drafted by you, submitted by you which can provide for a clear bias, as well as a number of different things. THAT is my point. You can not punish something that can not be proven.

And yes, we are conceding the fact that some players were benched, not only on Toronto but throughout the entire league. It happens. especially among teams in the bottom half who might not remain as interested. Is it acceptable? No. Do i believe there should be some sort of reprimand? Yes. But there needs to be a clear line drawn between "inactivity" and "cheating." Maybe Toronto benched more players than the rest of the teams in the league, maybe he benched less, who knows? There isn't really any way for us to know.

And as far as the PM that was posted goes, I think it clearly shows my intentions all along. "Something needs to be SAID." Somehow Nos has interpreted and presented this statement as "something needs to be done." This was never the case, as is clearly stated. "Something needs to be said." And something was said, thus the alleged "benchings" ceased
immediately, Andrew made an extra effort to remain active after a "warning" and the regular season played out by natural occurrence. This account of truth was consistent then, and it is consistent now. No need to try and confuse the readers with drivel or divert their attention away from the only thing that matters. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

[Derrick - Senators]

May 12, 2009 7:45:11 GMT -5 Ryan said:

as for this I agree with Nos that something should be done, I expected him to be looking at teams to see if someone was not playing by the rules as he may have been a bit angry over his situation last season, and he rightfully should be now there may be others violating this same rule but I feel that something does need to be done to discourage anyone from doing this, if we keep saying that other people are doing this I beleive the league loses on this. for an example if someone is close to last next season and wants to tank they would think hey I have nothing to lsoe, nothing will happen to me......or would you rather them think well I can either make moves to help me for the future and lessen my chances this season and possibly get a better pick or I could bench players and risk losing my good pick altogether.

I believe if this continues it will mean no good, I feel the list provided by Nos is very lengthy and should definately warrant something, we should encourage other GM's to be looking for this type of thing because from one Commish to another I believe that yes the commish should be the complete ruler of the league but in still relatively new leagues there are still things that need to be worked out and I think with that any league needs the help of all GM's to do this, whether the help means advising the commish of offences or whether it means being an active GM and doing your part for the league by managing your team to the best of your ability.

Thanks,
Ryan

oh and Nos im not exactly sure what you mean by him not saying Boo if it was me saying what your saying, im sure derrick would stick to his guns no matter who he is talking with, I just think that other GM's should be involved in somethings.

I agree that peers of this league need to be holding each other accountable for their actions. Not only does this provide extra sets of eyes, but it builds integrity.

Is it my responsibility to oversee the league? Yes. And at the time of the incident in question, I did what I felt, and still feel is the right thing. I checked out some, but not all of the alleged dates in question and saw a trend developing so I issued a warning to which Andrew's inactivity was ceased. It was far enough away from the end of the season that I felt natural occurrence could still play out, and the "damage was already done" argument is largely irrelevant because a majority of the days players were benched lots of "minus" stats were also lost. Why waste time arguing the semantics? It really could have gone either way, and with a month or more to play in the season that is more than enough time to let the standings decide themselves naturally, as was exhibited by Pittsburgh plummeting to last place, erasing a 20 point deficit in just two weeks. The bottom three teams were close, they were close all year. We can not nit pick at every little scenario, seen or unseen, to try and validate why we arent picking #1 or #2.

As i said before, there needs to be a clear line of punishment drawn between "inactivity" and cheating. Clearly Andrew was not attempting to cheat, as he heeded warning, and made moves at the deadline to improve his team. "Stripping" the pick is not the answer here, all this does is promote nit-picking and mock the very foundation of which we build this league. The ultimate goal is to grow, and in my opinion stripping the pick is a lateral move at best. The real solution is to acknowledge the fact that there is some inactivity within the league, and try and discuss the best form of "punishment" clearly separating those punishments from the reprimands of cheating.

2008 - Nos plotting via IM/PM to (successfully) bench players during the last week of play = cheating (premeditated) which resulted in the stripping of a pick.

2009 - Andrew (as well as others) prolonged random "benchings" bringing draft pick order into question (happenstance) = inactivity which should not result in the stripping of a pick but some other undetermined punishment.

[Robyn - Flames]

I like hockey.

[Andrew]

I don't have a very long-winded defence here, but I'll throw some thoughts out there.

For starters, I find it odd that Nos would bring this up now of all times, just days after Yahoo archived the league (or seems to have anyway). If he felt it was a problem early on, he should have brought it up as soon as he noticed so it could be addressed. When he spoke to Derrick late February-early March, it was dealt with smoothly.

Second, as Derrick noted, Nos offers no comparison to other managers who may have benched players throughout the year and doesn't bother making any observations as to how my benchings would have effected the week/standings. If you're willing to go through the effort to report every slip-up of mine during the year, you might as well present the impact of these benchings to give us a less exaggerated perspective of the problem.

Lastly and most importantly, we have to decide what's more important here: should we be strictly enforcing the rules or should we be carrying out the objective of the rules (fair play, friendly competition, all that bullshit). This has been an ongoing debate and is a bigger issue than my draft placement. I find it odd that in the "Section 9, Article B" poll, we voted to disagree with the clearly stated rules of the rulebook because we felt the other interpretation was more practical, yet here, in a case where I was certainly not cheating, the votes say I should be punished because I technically disobeyed the rules regardless. I don't blame people for looking out for number one, but some consistency here could resolve these issues more easily.

May 12, 2009 2:53:39 GMT -5 Nos - Sharks said:

Yahoo has not archived anything, it's all there, have a look.

I can't seem to find any active links to matchups, let alone daily roster lineups. Could you direct us to this so that anyone interested could look into it as well?

[Nos - Sharks]

I stopped reading replies because you guys are just being lazy. All of this can still be viewed on Yahoo like I said, had you read my post you'd know this. Had you gone onto Yahoo instead of remaining ignorant you'd see that you can pull up every single date. Do I really need to fucking screenshot every single day that there was a violation? Derrick's list of my players is a pure falsity. Those benchings never happened. There's a difference. Stop being such lazy bums and go look at the days in question. Isn't that your job Derrick? All you've done is spout the same BS you did in your first post, all shit I've debunked numerous times.

[Nos - Sharks]

May 12, 2009 17:33:01 GMT -5 Andrew said:

I can't seem to find any active links to matchups, let alone daily roster lineups. Could you direct us to this so that anyone interested could look into it as well?

Go to your team page, scroll through the dates one by one, that's what I did. It's all there.

[Nos - Sharks]

Dates Made Up by Derrick Debunked:



Versteeg didn't even have a game.



Lecavalier is on my roster but again, he has no game.



Koivu is on my roster but again, he has no game.
Nash is on my roster and played that day.
Krejci? I never once owned Krejci.



Crosby is on my roster but again, he has no game.



Bertuzzi? I didn't even have him on my roster.



Zajac is on my roster and played that day.
Iginla is on my roster and played that day.



Zajac has no game.
Versteeg is on my roster but again, has no game.
Parise is on my roster but again, has no game.



Crosby has no game.



Same day, Nash is on the IR and has no game.



Koivu is on my roster but again, he has no game.
Zajac isn't even a member of my club at this point.



Zajac isn't part of my club yet.
Iginla is on my roster and played that night.

There, this is all rather sickening. Yes you made these up, but I did not. Now go do your job.

[Nos - Sharks]

May 12, 2009 11:19:05 GMT -5 Derrick - Senators said:

While I can not "prove" this, you can not disprove these claims so they must be fact because I posted it as such on the forum without evidence. Do you get the point?

The only FACT here is that you can not post one screen shot or any other documentation otherwise that PROVES your accusations. All you have is a list, drafted by you, submitted by you which can provide for a clear bias, as well as a number of different things. THAT is my point. You can not punish something that can not be proven.

I've proven them to be false.

I've given you the evidence, it's not my fault if you refuse to even look at it. Go to Yahoo already. Again, do I really need to screenshot everything? Fucking ridiculous.

[Andrew]

Read Derrick's post again. He was clearly being sarcastic to illustrate a point. Krejci should have tipped you off.

[Nos - Sharks]

May 13, 2009 0:23:11 GMT -5 Andrew said:

Read Derrick's post again. He was clearly being sarcastic to illustrate a point. Krejci should have tipped you off.

The point he was trying to make was that I could have made up these dates and points lost and said I couldn't refute it with facts, which I proved wrong. Now you can't say "oh there's no record" because it's there for all to see.

[Andrew]

Disclaimer: This is boring, tedious bullshit that is being presented mainly for Nos. You might want to skip ahead or ignore me.

I went through the matchups for the dates you listed and looked into what would have actually happened if none of my players were ever benched. These are the results:

October 27 - November 2
The PIM category that Vancouver won, I would have tied. It is worthwhile noting that Vancouver had players on his bench three days of this week (a total of four players). +1 point to Toronto
November 3 - November 9
The SOG category Calgary won, I would have taken from him and won. +2 points to Toronto
November 10 - November 16
I benched zero players, Atlanta benched four. The benchings were a non-factor.
November 17 - November 23
I benched one player this week, he was a non-factor.
November 24 - November 30
Neither team benched anybody.
December 1 - December 7
Neither team benched anybody.
December 8 - December 14
I benched one player this week, he was a non-factor.
December 15 - December 21
The +/- category that was tied, I would have won. It's possible that I would have won SOG also, but unlikely since some of my benchings were mandatory (no roster space available) and Boston benched players with SOG when roster space was available. +1 point to Toronto
December 22 - December 28
No Toronto benchings, 2 Montreal benchings which were non-factors.
December 29 - January 4
Buffalo benched 2 assists, 4 PIM, 2 PPP, and 4 SOG more than me this week, but the stats did not affect the matchup. It is worthwhile noting that on three separate days this week, Buffalo had active players benched when roster slots were available.
January 5 - January 11
I benched 1 goal, +1, 10 shots, but the stats were non-factors.
January 12 - January 18
I benched an assload of stats, but they would all be non-factors in determining the matchup. Vancouver benched Lehtinen two nights when it wasn't necessary, but his stats were also insignificant.
January 19 - January 25
The goal category which was tied, I would have taken. +1 point to Toronto
January 26 - February 1
Toronto benches no one, Atlanta makes one benching, non-factor.
February 2 - February 8
The stats Nos posted can't seriously be taken into consideration since Demitra was on the IR at the time, not the bench. The players that were on the bench however were non-factors (since they had no PPP).
February 9 - February 15
I would have taken over the PIM category I lost. +2 points to Toronto
February 16 - February 22
I bench nobody, Winnipeg benches one player, non-factor.
February 23 - March 1
One player benched, non-factor.

These matchups cover from Week 4 - Week 21, almost the entire season. Nos, you yourself noted that after Week 21 (March and after) the benching issue was resolved, so it's unlikely anything significant happened after Week 21. Regardless, let's be generous and say that from all my crazy benching shenanigans, I would have moved up 10 pts in the standings. That's likely not the case and even if it was, I still would have finished 11th.

Let's return to Nos's opening statement...

1. Andrew benched numerous players throughout the course of the regular season.

Got me there... though the benchings are hardly unique to my team.

2. This causes his team to drop further in the standings than if he were to play all of the games as usual. 'Natural' occurrence doesn't apply to him because of the stats he lost, especially considering the margin between bottom teams was so minute.

I would see how you'd think this, but I've plainly debunked that for you above.

3. The rules are explicit, 'forgetting' to set your lineup is not a valid excuse as per the rulebook so let's eliminate that scapegoat.

You might have a point here, as I acknowledged in my original post. Thing is, if I'm going down, I'm taking others with me and certainly don't deserve to be singled out. Vancouver and Buffalo were both guilty of having benched players 3 days out of the week-long matchup, and I'm sure other teams are as well. The rules don't apply only to my team just because Nos knows how to hold a grudge.

In my opinion, the purpose of the rulebook is to deter cheating and resolve issues related to intentionally tanking your team, which was clearly not the case here. There's no sense in my acquiring Andrew fucking Raycroft at the deadline (along with several other tweaks) if I was tanking my team. There are ways to tank your team without disobeying the rulebook, and other teams exploited it this year and I could have too. If you feel that my intentions are irrelevant, then fine, throw the rulebook at me, but throw it at Vancouver, Buffalo, and other teams as well that were in the same situation.

[Nos - Sharks]

May 13, 2009 2:30:18 GMT -5 Andrew said:

Disclaimer: This is boring, tedious bullshit that is being presented mainly for Nos. You might want to skip ahead or ignore me.

I went through the matchups for the dates you listed and looked into what would have actually happened if none of my players were ever benched. These are the results:

October 27 - November 2
The PIM category that Vancouver won, I would have tied. It is worthwhile noting that Vancouver had players on his bench three days of this week (a total of four players). +1 point to Toronto
November 3 - November 9
The SOG category Calgary won, I would have taken from him and won. +2 points to Toronto
November 10 - November 16
I benched zero players, Atlanta benched four. The benchings were a non-factor.
November 17 - November 23
I benched one player this week, he was a non-factor.
November 24 - November 30
Neither team benched anybody.
December 1 - December 7
Neither team benched anybody.
December 8 - December 14
I benched one player this week, he was a non-factor.
December 15 - December 21
The +/- category that was tied, I would have won. It's possible that I would have won SOG also, but unlikely since some of my benchings were mandatory (no roster space available) and Boston benched players with SOG when roster space was available. +1 point to Toronto
December 22 - December 28
No Toronto benchings, 2 Montreal benchings which were non-factors.
December 29 - January 4
Buffalo benched 2 assists, 4 PIM, 2 PPP, and 4 SOG more than me this week, but the stats did not affect the matchup. It is worthwhile noting that on three separate days this week, Buffalo had active players benched when roster slots were available.
January 5 - January 11
I benched 1 goal, +1, 10 shots, but the stats were non-factors.
January 12 - January 18
I benched an assload of stats, but they would all be non-factors in determining the matchup. Vancouver benched Lehtinen two nights when it wasn't necessary, but his stats were also insignificant.
January 19 - January 25
The goal category which was tied, I would have taken. +1 point to Toronto
January 26 - February 1
Toronto benches no one, Atlanta makes one benching, non-factor.
February 2 - February 8
The stats Nos posted can't seriously be taken into consideration since Demitra was on the IR at the time, not the bench. The players that were on the bench however were non-factors (since they had no PPP).
February 9 - February 15
I would have taken over the PIM category I lost. +2 points to Toronto
February 16 - February 22
I bench nobody, Winnipeg benches one player, non-factor.
February 23 - March 1
One player benched, non-factor.

These matchups cover from Week 4 - Week 21, almost the entire season. Nos, you yourself noted that after Week 21 (March and after) the benching issue was resolved, so it's unlikely anything significant happened after Week 21. Regardless, let's be generous and say that from all my crazy benching shenanigans, I would have moved up 10 pts in the standings. That's likely not the case and even if it was, I still would have finished 11th.

Let's return to Nos's opening statement...


Got me there... though the benchings are hardly unique to my team.

I would see how you'd think this, but I've plainly debunked that for you above.

3. The rules are explicit, 'forgetting' to set your lineup is not a valid excuse as per the rulebook so let's eliminate that scapegoat.

You might have a point here, as I acknowledged in my original post. Thing is, if I'm going down, I'm taking others with me and certainly don't deserve to be singled out. Vancouver and Buffalo were both guilty of having benched players 3 days out of the week-long matchup, and I'm sure other teams are as well. The rules don't apply only to my team just because Nos knows how to hold a grudge.

In my opinion, the purpose of the rulebook is to deter cheating and resolve issues related to intentionally tanking your team, which was clearly not the case here. There's no sense in my acquiring Andrew fucking Raycroft at the deadline (along with several other tweaks) if I was tanking my team. There are ways to tank your team without disobeying the rulebook, and other teams exploited it this year and I could have too. If you feel that my intentions are irrelevant, then fine, throw the rulebook at me, but throw it at Vancouver, Buffalo, and other teams as well that were in the same situation.

This is a great post and a worthy defense. I feel a little better now that I know it actually wouldn't have changed anything. However, I still feel the rules were broken and something needs to be done about the benching of players, but I won't hold it against you. Thanks for providing a concise argument backed up with facts.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

I forgot to set my lineup a couple time this year. I also intentionally benched players on way more than 3 occasions.

[Krzysztof - NAFHDL Predators]

In my defense, the example above about my team was during the New Year, so I could have been drunk at that time.

Regardless, I am all for punishment. I am sure I was lazy other weeks and didn't put in my roster.

To make this easier, and if we are this serious about enforcing it, lets have a week by week spot check where this is tracked in the new season. This way there is no question of people being singled out due to draft position.