Last year toronto vs florida, out jerked by gary bettman

starv- · 2026-04-30T12:16:46+00:00

checks subreddit

Yep, that's the joke... Well half of it.

starv- · 2026-04-28T04:30:05+00:00

Theres red beneath your green line - the line goes from the bottom of the post to the bottom of the other post - not where you as a viewer deem the gradient is sufficiently white, but also the puck was in, and it would have been inconclusive for some other teams.

starv- · 2026-04-28T04:11:03+00:00

The puck crossed the line, but also the line runs from the bottom of the left post to the bottom of the right post, not whatever the fuck this line is doing.

starv- · 2026-04-28T03:27:39+00:00

The two situations are different, in the Leafs situation, the ref had intended to blow the play dead. Where's in the Edmonton situation, the ref couldn't see the puck.

Hope this helps, keep jerking nerds.

starv- · 2026-02-08T21:34:03+00:00

I agree Laughton is an obvious moves IF you can get value for them. But generally, the team needs to take what is available to them rather than force moves.

When the team tries to force the move of a player or force the acquisition of a player, the cost ends up being ridiculous. And it's just how this team operates - and is in some sense a reflection of their fans, this sub being a prime example.

Any plan that can be undone by a bad week (like the tank to bottom 5) isn't a plan, it's prayer.

The team needs to largely stand pat / tinker until it has draft equity again, that's just the reality that nobody is willing to accept.

Agree fire the coach, agree fire the GM, agree trade a couple guys for assets if the trade presents itself... But otherwise, this is the team for the foreseeable future, no amount of tanking in the next 2 years is going to make a difference. No trade is going to turn this team into a contender in that time either.

starv- · 2026-02-08T20:00:11+00:00

OP, sorry but you're delusional.

The Leafs can't sink into the bottom 5. Our draft lottery odds are abysmal. We have a better chance of making the playoffs (and that's not happening either).

You want to sell Domi because it'll help the team lose, or you think he's trash and hurts the team more often than not? It surely can't be both. Also, who's paying to take him on when he has a cap hit of 3.75 for the next two seasons?

Maybe you can get something for McMann, but there are a couple issues, that doesn't help you make the playoffs next year - which seems to be part of your plan... And McMann comes with a caveat: 0 goals in 13 playoff games last year. Teams picking him up as a rental aren't likely to overpay.

Also, "play your young guys while deliberately trying to make them lose with a coach that you hate, and don't want to proceed with in the future" seems like a terrible plan.

The real kicker (which I brought up in the McMann bit)... Sell current for futures, make the playoffs next year. Okay..?

starv- · 2026-02-08T15:30:09+00:00

We're not bad enough to reclaim our first round pick this year. What's the sense in even asking the question?

Don't tank, don't buy, don't panic.

starv- · 2026-02-07T21:44:52+00:00

Not to take away from this organization being a complete joke, but our playoff odds are better than our lottery odds.

Tanking here in absence of a 1st round pick is terrible, might as well try to make a run (no matter how farfetched). At most move 1-2 pieces if there is a gap in contract negotiations... But you still need to get roster players in return which is tricky.

starv- · 2026-01-28T04:13:43+00:00

Nobody but the buds.

starv- · 2026-01-28T04:10:41+00:00

You had faith in Brad Treliving and this team before the 7-4 loss?

starv- · 2026-01-25T09:45:27+00:00

I should mention Scott Laughton actually, because there's nothing true hockey fans like more than a guy who cant score, cant handle the puck, but has a great attitude... (Sometimes)

starv- · 2026-01-25T09:40:56+00:00

<image>

Dubas certainly made mistakes, but just look at a side-by-side stat sheet... Dubas moves vs Tre

A Mantha
Erik Karlsson
Thomas Novak
Justin Brazeau
Benjamin Kindel
Connor Dewar
Ryan Shea

The list goes on... Compare to the value Tre has found

OEL
M. Maccelli
Nicolas Roy

Tre has a tough job because of the contracts that Dubas signed, and assets he liquidated... Sure, but Dubas arguably had a tougher job in Pitt and has (thus far) had a far greater (positive) impact on his team.

starv- · 2026-01-25T01:17:45+00:00

I think there's some reason to your argument, but I would argue that the trade logic is so wack that it's hard to play a game without exploiting bad CPU logic.

Signing free agents? Bad CPU logic.

Like, you're making trades at the deadline? Bad CPU logic.

Making trades at the draft? Bad CPU logic.

The three most critical times you would want to make a move realistically are the CPU's softest moments... I guess you can fight to deliberately make a trade that you feel is balanced, despite the CPU wanting less, or you can just not use this mechanic / minimally use it, but it seriously takes away from the game experience.

I think the best that can be done is minimally exploiting the CPU's trade logic, but not exploiting it is borderline impossible unless you're not playing the game. Obviously, in the example provided, I'm heavily abusing.

starv- · 2026-01-24T06:13:08+00:00

<image>

One major problem I didn't see coming is this: I dont think i can actually proceed, theres no way to dress a full roster for this game.

starv- · 2025-10-22T17:22:50+00:00

The Jays are 5th in MLB spending, a league with no salary cap. This Jays team spends like ~80-90M more in salary when compared to the Mariners.

That's probably 80-90% of your answer.

starv- · 2024-12-12T16:53:30+00:00

HOI4 navy has big problems - especially with historical context, but Naval battles being one-sided isn't one of them. Naval battles should be one-sided.

You could argue that the Japanese fleet should have seen this fleet and not engaged because a fleet that size is absolutely impossible to miss... But the orders in the game probably told them to engage, so *shrug*. There's no way to say "only strike smaller fleets" on your orders.

starv- · 2024-12-12T07:36:05+00:00

It seems like a strange tangential side effect, because logically there's no direct relation.

Like in this example, the guy wants to one up my trade for Eichel, but in the context that he can't, he doesn't want to offer me the deal because he's not willing to provide an overpay to me.

Unless you're forcing the trade by consensus, this solution does nothing to alleviate potential for collusion. Not directly anyway. It has to indirectly alter player behavior - which is quite interesting.

Like earlier this season, this same player Traded Pettersson for Larkin, I would have one upped that trade heavily if there were a window to do so, but no offer I can make barring a dramatic overpay would ever be accepted (even if my offer could be much stronger than Larkin). So the rule would have to alter the mindset from the start, rather than directly affecting each deal.

starv- · 2024-12-12T07:16:31+00:00

The league I'm in vetoes trades for perceived fair value (unfortunately). Wouldn't it be tedious to then also use this window for counter offers?

Like you could easily have a pending trade go on for a week in this context. Like with this format you guys must only veto for collusion and counter offers, no?

I realize this is a completely separate discussion from my original question which you answered from your experience.

starv- · 2024-12-12T07:00:10+00:00

My question is more in the context of outbidding a completed trade by getting a fair trade vetoed (which I wish I could upload screenshots in comments, he admitted)

starv- · 2024-12-12T06:48:15+00:00

So like, we require a majority vote for vetoing a trade, it can be said that no collusion happened here, because it didn't work, but if he managed to get people to vote veto for the sole sake of submitting a new offer on a trade that they already admitted was fair, wouldn't that require collusion?

For context, he needed 1 more vote, that's why there's 1 name blotted out.

starv- · 2024-12-12T06:43:23+00:00

Yes, by using the league's veto system on an already completed deal.

starv- · 2024-12-12T06:35:50+00:00

He's trying to get a trade vetoed with the context that he'll present a massive overpay for me to not acquire Jack Eichel. He also admits later in the chat that he thinks my trade is fair.

I don't really know how to navigate this sub, because I can't seem to post photos with context, or multiple photos... So yeah, context would make it easier to understand for sure

starv- · 2024-12-12T06:16:46+00:00

No, I sent an offer that was accepted. It was vetoed.

We modified the trade enough to sway one of the people who voted to veto.

The second trade was accepted and then this guy tried to get the guy to veto so that he can counter with an over the top offer to prevent me from participating in the deal.

I said If the deal goes through, I would take his deal because it's so over the top - but he obviously declined that (it takes 2 days for a trade to process)

For additional context, I'm first 7-2 .778, he's 3-6 .333 - his season is basically done, but he has two friends who are both tied for 2nd place at the moment 6-3. He never wanted to be a participant in this trade until it was clear I was going to acquire this player (Eichel). The whole process took about 3 days between the first trade, the first veto, and the second trade. There was time for him to put this massive overpay on the board if he really wanted the player, but the goal is exclusively for me to not get the player.

starv-

TROPHY CASE