Salary Floor

[Dave (PLK)]

Pembroke was under the cap floor for week 1 - is now compliant

Djurgardens would have been compliant had they inserted Calle Rosen week 1

Inuvik has been adjusted by me back to week 1 - is compliant



Do you want to invoke penalty of dropping 2 spots in the 2018 entry draft for these teams.

[Deleted]

Easy yes!!

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

I voted no because I believe that the floor should only exist for teams that are actively trying to tank, and since I see that these teams are icing their best roster I would not penalize them. Also Pembroke Nate Thompson > Josh Jooris .

[Golden Seals]

I'm more lenient towards cap floor as opposed to ceiling.

[Deleted]

I've already stated my case on this. Hard yes.

[Deleted]

In a vacuum, my vote is yes.

However, I want to vote no because I think the burden of keeping a team cap compliant falls on all 24 GMs. Like Willy said none of these teams are intentionally tanking. I can't expect a poor asset team to pay the piper to a rich team for a high cap hit player sitting on the minors on some rich asset team. Especially if they are actively trying to make a trade like Dave was.

My suggestion is every team not at the cap floor drops one draft spot AND every team stashing over a certain agreed upon amount of $$$ in the minors drops five spots (the 1:5 ratio is to even out the value of a high vs low draft pick assuming the rich team is picking low in the draft) . This way, it is a shared benefit for both the rich and poor teams to make a trade. No penalties handed out which seems like a good outcome for all.

So to sum it up, I will change my vote to no if some rule change is made to help balance out the responsibility of keeping a cap compliant team.

[Djurgardens]

Certain rules are feasible in enforcement provided other factors supply an environment that isn't in and of itself set against a team attempting to address the issue.

When you have a number of teams who don't respond in a timely fashion - if at all - to reasonable inquiries, then how can a GM be penalized if the only tool available to address said issue is greatly compromised close enough to not being a means to an end in the first place?

Discretion is demanded in this situation.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

Oct 11, 2017 19:50:35 GMT -5 Djurgardens said:

Certain rules are feasible in enforcement provided other factors supply an environment that isn't in and of itself set against a team attempting to address the issue.

When you have a number of teams who don't respond in a timely fashion - if at all - to reasonable inquiries, then how can a GM be penalized if the only tool available to address said issue is greatly compromised close enough to not being a means to an end in the first place?

Discretion is demanded in this situation.

Kind of on the fence on this. I don't think offending GMs PM'd enough teams looking for cheap cap dumps and when you have Lupul and Horton both available and waiver picks there was an easy and readily available fix and they could sit on IR and not even take a roster spot. I don't buy the "only tool available" argument. I also think there is bias with cap floor as opposed to cap ceiling when they both should be seen as not being cap compliant I think more people would want penalties for teams over the cap.

I think the penalty is a little too harsh which is why I'm on the fence since a team losing out on a top 3 pick I don't think is a fitting and fair penalty and think that the penalty was written with cap ceiling in mind thinking it would be penalizing a later pick.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2017 17:26:55 GMT -5 @koomzz said:

I've already stated my case on this. Hard yes.

I should amend this statement, after reading some other comments. There should 100% be a punishment or fine or something for teams being over the cap or under the floor. They should not be the same punishment, IMO. And the punishment of dropping 2 spots for missing the floor is extremely harsh especially like others have said they are not blatantly tanking, but rules are rules. I think the enforcement of the rules should change, but still should be enforced. 

I'm leaving my vote as yes, because there should still be a punishment. But I don't think it should be the punishment that is posted in the OP. And since it is usually a draft punishment, we would have all season to come up with a reasonable punishment for these offenses, I would be on board with that.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

No in this particular case as we've been very lax on enforcing such rules and instituting penalties since the league started. To suddenly start instituting penalties now seems a bit sudden and reactionary - and may not be fair to some who may not have taken the rule seriously given past non-enforcement. It's fine if we all voted to do so going forward (as long as everyone is clearly aware of such), but we should definitely review the penalties as 2 spots does seem a bit drastic (perhaps in 2nd and later rounds), but not the 1st where even a drop of 1 spot can be particularly damaging)

[Dave (PLK)]

I have deleted everything except posts of reasons how you voted.

[Dave (PLK)]

I would like to get more votes though, for those who haven't

ABB, HEL, INU, KOK, MED, MET, ONR, RCH, STJ, SKA, TOR


thanks.

[Deleted]

I already voted no

[Deleted]

Someone change their vote from yes to no !! Why and when ?

[Golden Seals]

Oct 13, 2017 18:30:15 GMT -5 @thenudge said:

Someone change their vote from yes to no !! Why and when ?

Both irrelevant