LGP Fantasy Hockey Keeper League

[Kraftster]

This is hilarious. I can't remember the last time I was taking the humanitarian side in an argument. I generally take fantasy sports more seriously than most too. I feel like if I don't like this rule then there is no way it makes any sense other than providing schadenfreude for some of you.

[Troy Loney]

This rule only seems to benefit people who are either:

1. not looking at who's avaiable
2. bad at cross referencing or multi step researching
3. keeping tabs on the less active owners to cherry pick their rookies.

[Pitts]

I honestly don't care one way or the other. I may be coming off angry or fired up, but I'm not at all. But, we've now had this same discussion 3-4 times now in this draft alone. That tells me a rule needs to be in place.

[Kraftster]

Or that people need to search LGP or the entire google doc.

p.s. I'm not angry either. I am having a good time feeling my heart bleed for once.

[Letang Is The Truth]

As has been said by someone else, the Search feature on this site has never worked correctly for me. I stopped using it years ago. Trying to find threads from months ago is tedious at best.

I do not, for the life of me, understand why it is so hard for anyone to reference the google doc. It's free, it's open and it is easy to update. My entire team history since 2009 is in there.

Mentioing Yahoo is useless as it is only current during the season and does not account for the rookies which we are discussing anyway.

I just "ctrl f" on the first page where all the keepers are listed. that works just fine for me.

This is the same thing I do which is how I didn't find bjugstad. If it isn't in that thread that ctrl F doesn't come and my larger NHR search doesn't work

[Pitts]

This rule only seems to benefit people who are either:

1. not looking at who's avaiable
2. bad at cross referencing or multi step researching
3. keeping tabs on the less active owners to cherry pick their rookies.

As for point number 3 -- Azkar in particular submitted a list of keepers for this season which included 10 rookie keepers. He now has 11 as he added one (tatar) during this fiasco. 3 of the picks this year (granlund, tatar and nillson/bungstad?? - I'm a little confused) were apparently his. Why were they not on the list with the other 10?

Nobody is cherry picking anyone's team. I think we are all good guys here, but also very knowledgeable. For my part, I always assume "name" rookies, like Granlund, are already taken. But, I do the search if I'm interested in one of them -- just in case he's available. If they are not listed in the draft thread, or the team submitted keepers lists, why should be required to do more?

[Troy Loney]

I know. But I remember bjugstad being taken so a simple second step of typing it into the search box yielded the fact that he was indeed taken.

[TheHammer24]

A few thoughts:

The reason why the lose-your-unlisted-rookie rule is necessary is because other owners--i.e., those that are dutifully following the draft--are punished. This occurs in two ways. As idoit said, Owner A may pick unlisted rookie. The draft continues only to see Owner B negligently failed to put him on his keeper list. Now, Owner A has to make a pick several slots (or rounds) later. It could also injure Owner A if he said "I'll take a G this round" because there are still two Rookies I want next round. If one of those rookies actually was not available (again because of the negligent owner's fault) his pick strategy could be disrupted. Punishing the negligent owner fixes this. That said, I immediately offered to forfeit Granlund, but at this point, I'm, what, 8 round from when I made the pick?

Troy's approach, however, is unnecessary (and recognize I'd be injured most by this). Here, the negligent owner is the one that made the pick. If the draft goes on, it's of no consequence that the negligent owner has to pick several spots after he could have. It's his fault that he's doing so. That is sufficient punishment. Punishing him more is needlessly penal. There's no reason to further disincentive it because it causes no harm at all. Plus, imagine if someone screw up his very first pick by taking someone that was kept? Are we really going to deprive him of a first rounder? Negligently unkept rookies, on the other hand, are usually minor players.

[Letang Is The Truth]

Or that people need to search LGP or the entire google doc.

p.s. I'm not angry either. I am having a good time feeling my heart bleed for once.

I usually do search the entire doc but I assumed that everyone would have validated their lists after granlund.

I agree with Pitts (and not just that it benefits me). It's a very simple thing to keep track of your players. We shouldn't be creating work arounds for people to be lazy or careless

[Idoit40fans]

Yeah I don't care one way or the other either. I am not going to lose anyone, but i'm also not going to pick anyone that has already been selected because I'm searching thoroughly. If I happen to come across someone that was already drafted but not in the thread, and I pray that I do that for as many as possible, i'll update the thread. I'm not going to fight with someone that drafts someone that was already selected but not declared though. At the same time, we have a lot of time to get this draft finished, so it would be nice if we could be careful through these last couple rounds, I can pretty much maintain who is kept moving through this year into next.

[TheHammer24]

How about this:


A. If you pick someone already taken, the draft may continue, and you may pick as soon as you realize your error, which could be any time after you made the error.

B. You lose rookies that you forgot to list. However, you can reacquire that rookie by trading your draft pick in the next year's draft of the round your unlisted rookie was drafted as long as the error is discovered within 1 round of the selection (so, the "innocent" owner isn't too harmed by the error). The "innocent" owner then repicks (within the round---i.e., 12 picks) and gets the pick the negligent owner had to trade.

C. You can correct errors in failing to list your rookies at any time before they are selected by e-mailing Idoit.

This implements the consensus -- at least the consensus among the more outspoken posters -- but softens its effect while still achieving its desired end.

[Kraftster]

I don't know what's going on, but I agree with hammer that this discussion really revolves around who should bear the responsibility. In that regard, I'm with Idoit and Troy. Troy in the sense that I remember if players are taken. I'm not taking Bjugstad or Granlund because I know they were taken and did not lose eligibility. I wouldn't even be inclined to check. But, assume I do because I really like the guy, I'm still going to find him as being owned because I check LGP draft records before I pick if I'm not sure. Meaning: I never stand to benefit from this tough **** rule unless I specifically look to prey on mistakes despite knowing that another team should own a specific rookie.

I think this is the heart of the problem for me. The laziness of negligent owners is being decried as being the cause of all of this when a diligent search would also avoid the situation. I don't really buy the why should I have to do more than check the keeper page because we've seen mistakes before. We know this isn't a perfect system having to track things manually, so to speak. All the more reason for GMs to double and triple check their rookies, yes. But, equally all the more reason for people to search before picking. We want to punish lazy google doc managers and reward lazy draft pickers.

For me its as simple as, is there any reason in the world that Granlund and Bjugstad would not be kept? I think there are several of us who immediately know if someone was previously drafted. We've seen that because its usually picked up immediately. So, this whole getting 10 rounds into the draft before we realize thing is probably never going to happen.

[Kraftster]

Also, to add one more thing, I like Hammer's point that this could affect people because they count on a particular number of options like player-in-question to be available when they don't see a rookie listed on the keeper page. By the same token, I am disadvantaged by the fact that I never consider Granlund to be available. I'm guessing I'm not alone in that regard. So, I guess now going forward I should take the step of disregarding my basic knowledge of the fact that one of the top rookies in the game was previously owned and traded. I should take extra time double checking to see if I can add anyone that should be owned to my list of available players.

[TheHammer24]

Those are fine points, but I find checking the thread, Google Doc, and Web Page onerous. It doesn't surprise me you don't because you probably put a lot more time into your picks than I do. By the 6th round, I'm simply going off a list of a lot of people I have never heard of -- especially rookies -- and I want to hurriedly make my pick and move on. I get to the part of the list where some people haven't been picked and ctrl + F. So sure, people that put less time into their picks and know less about the NHL might"benefit" because they will luck into their discoveries. But if everyone know there's a rule ahead of time, then those that pay more attention will benefit more in the end, for they will take the time to figure out who was not kept. You're not "preying" on an absent minded owner if the rule is clear and spelled out.

The one thing that seems missing is that people keep characterizing the triple-crosscheck as easy. It's really not when you make 19 picks. What is easy is looking at the team you drafted last year, figuring out which of the FOUR rookies you drafted have played <65 games, and then submitting them at a deadline. You only have to do that one time, not 19. And what's the point of Idoit working endlessly to keep the draft thread updated if half the league can't even submit the rookies at the outset.

[Idoit40fans]

Well the point is that once we get a list o rookies that we're set on, ill just babysit each rookie list year over year.

[Idoit40fans]

I have gone through the drafts, albeit kinda quickly, but I think I got all of the ones that are missed. Let me know if anyone disputes any of these.

Hammer adds:
Elliott, Stefan

Malka Adds:
Esposito, Angelo
Dekanich, Mark
Murphy, Ryan
Hertl, Tomas

I wouldn't be opposed to Azkar getting a pick added to the beginning or end of the 4th round since this is occurring just after we redrafted one of his players.

[Idoit40fans]

By the way, malka is up.

[Idoit40fans]

Also, who does etem belong to?

[bhaw]

It's either malk or litt, I believe.

[Letang Is The Truth]

Malk

[bhaw]

Is the league active on yahoo and rosters up yet?

[TheHammer24]

Yeah it is.

[TheHammer24]

We only have 7/12 teams signed up. Who's missing?


- avatar PickleStabbers 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
- avatar The Troy Loneys 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
- avatar PittsPuckinBunnies 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
- avatar TheHammer's Nailers 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
Bob Johnson
- avatar Cheesesteakwithegg 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
- avatar Kicksave 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
- avatar причинителя вреда 0-0-0 .000 0-0-0 0 - - -
Invite Your Friends

[bhaw]

me, where's the link and I'll get in

[TheHammer24]

http://y.ahoo.it/lQSKy2Gx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Try that. I think pw is letsgopens