FCP Bob 1,321 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 You didn't get it from the reply I just PMed you on the AHL site? So the rules that are in place can be changed whenever you choose? The rules state the fine for the first missed lineup is $1.00. It doesn't specify any other specifics. The PM you sent didn't comment on my suggestion for the future. You are breaking both rules in this case by missing a lineup. I feel comfortable in viewing things that way. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 jesus christ dude, grow up. How long did you bitch and moan about AHL this and AHL that? Not once did anyone call you a whiney baby. I voice my displeasure at how I think Biatch is making a mockery of the league and the first thing you post is how I sound like a whiney baby. I bring up the spirit of the game and you call it meaningless rhetoric yet you used the exact same term in the FCHL in your role as commish. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 The PM you sent didn't comment on my suggestion for the future. You are breaking both rules in this case by missing a lineup. I feel comfortable in viewing things that way. So it'll cost me $1 and a 4th? Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 The PM you sent didn't comment on my suggestion for the future. You are breaking both rules in this case by missing a lineup. I feel comfortable in viewing things that way. Are you referring to your suggestion that the in-season cap not be affected by the off-season cap? Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 How long did you bitch and moan about AHL this and AHL that? Not once did anyone call you a whiney baby. I voice my displeasure at how I think Biatch is making a mockery of the league and the first thing you post is how I sound like a whiney baby. I bring up the spirit of the game and you call it meaningless rhetoric yet you used the exact same term in the FCHL in your role as commish. I didn't act like a petulant child and threaten to leave a lineup blank. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 I didn't act like a petulant child and threaten to leave a lineup blank. I'm not sulking, I'm doing it to make a point. I'm not surprised you can't see that either. And it's a strategy. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Do you just like ruining things for everyone or what? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,321 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 Are you referring to your suggestion that the in-season cap not be affected by the off-season cap? Yes, it's a simple solution to the issue or it seems that way to me. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 Do you just like ruining things for everyone or what? Huh! What am I ruining? Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I admit. I had to look up Petulant. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,321 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I'm not sulking, I'm doing it to make a point. I'm not surprised you can't see that either. And it's a strategy. If your strategy is to really frustrate me you are doing a good job of it. It is not constructive and not appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 I admit. I had to look up Petulant. My mom used to call me that. Huh! What am I ruining? I imagine more than one person's night, anyways. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 If your strategy is to really frustrate me you are doing a good job of it. It is not constructive and not appreciated. My strategy is to finish first in the East and hope that Magically Delicious does not finish first in the West. Then I'm hoping he gets knocked out before I have to face him. It seems like the +ev move to me, especially considering his starting lineup tomorrow night has a total salary of $108.25 while no other team in the league can even have a full roster at that salary. I looked at the other teams in the West and narrowed it down to Winning Combination and Puck Warfare as the only two with a reasonable chance to finish ahead of Magically Delicious. Choosing one, I feel Winning Combination has the better chance. Why am I not permitted to use what little strategy this is without being reprimanded? Every player I had in my lineup is an active and contributing NHL player. Why are you, or the league, allowed to dictate which of my active players I must put in my lineup? And if you're allowed to do that then why would it be so difficult if I don't post a lineup? You already know what my lineup should be, apparently. You can even submit it for me if you choose. Is changing the rules by fining me $1 AND taking away a 4th round pick a result of your frustration? There's a few other frustrated people around here too. But it's fun to you. Serge doesn't sound like he thinks it's fun. Neither does Jay; or Mike. I'm sure there's a few of the 'silents' who don't like it either. Maybe we'd all find it fun if we had benefitted from turning 25¢ draft picks into long-term cheap top players and won the last 5 out of 6 years; I don't know. Did you look at Magically Delicious' $108.25 lineup for tomorrow night? There's nothing "keeper" or "salary cap" about that lineup. It's a mockery. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 My mom used to call me that. It's one of my favorite words. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 My mom used to call me that. I imagine more than one person's night, anyways. Is anyone here against their will? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,321 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 your so called strategy directly contradicts the rule that you must submit a lineup that gives you the best chance to win the game for that night within the normal managerial discretion. I am interpreting that rule in this case to also mean entering an empty lineup as you have done. I have asked you in private in a nice way to please submit a normal lineup. I am asking you in public in a nice way to please submit a normal lineup. If you don't submit a normal lineup I am taking it very personally as you telling me to go **** myself since you are directly going against what I have asked you to do. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 What would you consider a normal lineup? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,321 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 What would you consider a normal lineup? I'm probably never going to question a team's goaltending decision. A normal lineup is one that contains your best players who are playing that night and if you have some players who are clearly your best they should never sit. You can never really justify not having Stamkos, Subban, Weber and Phaenuf in your lineup for example. Now if a team sat Player A who would normally be considered one of their clear best but they did it because they were playing the best defensive team and they are in a slump that can't and won't be questioned. I'm not a moron and it can be pretty clear when somebody is either being lazy or on purpose not putting in their best lineup. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 I think the loophole that is being exploited that should be closed is in letting the in season roster maximum be affected by how much money you have before the season starts. If the maximum in season roster is $90 then whether those expensive players are acquired before the season or after wouldn't matter like it does now. There was an advantage for Biatch to trade for Ovi and the cash before the season and not after. We have never had anybody trade for that much money before the season started before. I am fully in favour of making the in season roster maximum be the same no matter how much money a team has to start and then this "problem" is no longer one. Something like $100 in 2014/15' date=' $95 in 2015/16 and $90 in 2016/17 and on going would be my suggestion. This will still allow teams to trade expensive one year players during the season to rebuild or trade for money before the season but they won't be able to go so far overboard. The reason the in season roster maximum was brought in was to keep one team from trading for too many rental players in an effort to win it all one year.[/quote'] So a rule was implemented to prevent what is happening from happening, but Biatch is exploiting a loophole in that rule. It's not in the spirit of the league and we're going to implement another rule next season to prevent it from happening again, but in the meantime, it's ok for this season. lol Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 19, 2013 Author Share Posted October 19, 2013 I've submitted my lineup for tomorrow. I hope it's within the spirit of the league. Please inform Zach and Steve so they can sleep tonight. Link to post Share on other sites
iBeaver 409 Posted October 19, 2013 Share Posted October 19, 2013 lol I was probably asleep by 10. I had been up 39 hrs straight being sick. I feel better now. Hope you do too. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 @Ledger_NJDevils: Pete DeBoer on Eric Gelinas: "I want to be real careful anointing this guy the next Chris Pronger." http://t.co/MxNh7etMHX Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 To Shooters: F Nick Foligno CLB $1.50 To Gothic: F Jordan Staal CAR $5.75, $6.75 Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,321 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I like that neither player is playing tonight so we don't have to scramble and decide whether the trade is before tonight's games or after. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Interesting. Gothic certainly got the most upside, but obviously take on a slightly over-sized contract for how he has recently been producing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now