Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 19:19:31 GMT -5
Someone change their vote from yes to no !! Why and when ? Both irrelevant why people can't just honor what they vote ? If you believe in yes then stick by it and vise versa. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 20:25:55 GMT -5
The rules is in the offseason have been loosely enforced. Since I took over I haven't seen anything like being under or over the cap by an active GM that I remember currently. As a rebuilding team there are rules that I think could be changed for the benefit of the league.
For example rebuilding teams don't usually have expensive players so the 10% increase or whatever it is can be difficult at times. The increase in the salary cap max is an advantage for competing teams but the increase in the floor I have found as a disadvantage as a rebuilder. The cap floor and the max of 70 players are the two biggest I can think of b/c when you are rebuilding you aren't stashing a bunch of NHLers in the minors you are stashing as many lotto tickets as you can. (Another rule I'd like to see changed/at least talked about)
I would like to see the floor be the actual NHL floor and would be fine with the cap max + the 10% staying as it is.
I think that a penalty should be enforced but dropping 2 spots of a 1st rounder is harsh. The reason I say a penalty should be enforced is b/c I personally dropped cap dumps that could have been taken to get to the cap floor b/c that is what I have done in previous years. I've even had to drop prospects to stay under 70 players to be at the cap floor.
Offseason no biggie in season is a bit more of an issue but to fine a 2 spot drop of a top pick is ridiculous IMO for a one week rule violation for I am assuming a first time offender.
Dropping a 2nd rounder a few spots or losing something like a middle round pick would be more in line I believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 9:42:27 GMT -5
Voted yes.
A rule is a rule meant to be enforced. I personally reached out to one team to help get compliant inquiring about 2 players. To which I just got a screw off basically.
I'm sitting players to stay within the cap and may have to waive some if I cant make a deal. If they aren't penalized for being under the floor I'm not going to bend over backwards to stay under the ceiling.
The penalty and 10% increase is another question, I am only basing my vote on the current rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 17, 2017 10:30:31 GMT -5
I would like to get more votes though, for those who haven't ABB, HEL, INU, KOK, MED, STJ, SCS, SKA, TOR thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 10:50:54 GMT -5
Voted yes. Lets hope it doesn't bite me in the ass later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by zigzag (Zagreb) on Oct 17, 2017 11:50:37 GMT -5
Voted no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 17, 2017 13:29:49 GMT -5
Kokanee last to vote, please
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 18:28:34 GMT -5
close vote 11-8
I really like Matt's comment about Lupul and Horton available on waivers. To me that's the strongest point to let the penalty stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Oct 17, 2017 21:52:44 GMT -5
close vote 11-8 I really like Matt's comment about Lupul and Horton available on waivers. To me that's the strongest point to let the penalty stand. If the penalty was less harsh I think the vote goes differently. I see no reason not to penalize teams that broke rules other than the penalty wasn't proportionate to the offence. The problem we created is now lets say a team goes over the cap next week, as a league there is no way we can penalize that team as a precedent has now been set and I guess they would get a warning and have a week to get legal. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 18, 2017 9:46:53 GMT -5
close vote 11-8 I really like Matt's comment about Lupul and Horton available on waivers. To me that's the strongest point to let the penalty stand. If the penalty was less harsh I think the vote goes differently. I see no reason not to penalize teams that broke rules other than the penalty wasn't proportionate to the offence. The problem we created is now lets say a team goes over the cap next week, as a league there is no way we can penalize that team as a precedent has now been set and I guess they would get a warning and have a week to get legal. Wrong Matt. the vote was in favour of penalty. SO BEWARE. I will be ruling with an iron fist for you fukkers!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 18, 2017 9:48:36 GMT -5
same with the max 70 rule.
I relaxed it to give people time to get back to 70.
no more...if you go over - whichever transaction put you over will be negated immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 18, 2017 9:49:04 GMT -5
Also, be aware of the activity rule.
I will be enforcing this one also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Djurgardens on Oct 18, 2017 12:18:05 GMT -5
close vote 11-8 I really like Matt's comment about Lupul and Horton available on waivers. To me that's the strongest point to let the penalty stand. I see no reason not to penalize teams that broke rules other than the penalty wasn't proportionate to the offence. The problem we created is now lets say a team goes over the cap next week, as a league there is no way we can penalize that team as a precedent has now been set and I guess they would get a warning and have a week to get legal. To Dave's point, the vote is about whether or not you want to impose the rule to reduce those teams' (mentioned and all others moving forward) entry draft positions by two places for the infractions described in the thread's first post. So you're not voting for the idea of a penalty being imposed - no one disputes the need for a penalty. You're voting for that specific penalty in this specific instance. You're saying a clerical error due to one thing or another or other oversights that resulted in this infraction should be penalized by two spots in the entry draft. So when you note proportionality to the offence, perhaps you thought you were voting for simply the idea of a penalty being imposed as opposed to the severity of the penalty you seem to disagree with that's actually the vote at hand? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 12:32:42 GMT -5
If the penalty was less harsh I think the vote goes differently. I see no reason not to penalize teams that broke rules other than the penalty wasn't proportionate to the offence. The problem we created is now lets say a team goes over the cap next week, as a league there is no way we can penalize that team as a precedent has now been set and I guess they would get a warning and have a week to get legal. To Dave's point, the vote is about whether or not you want to impose the rule to reduce those teams' (mentioned and all others moving forward) entry draft positions by two places for the infractions described in the thread's first post. So you're not voting for the idea of a penalty being imposed - no one disputes the need for a penalty. You're voting for that specific penalty in this specific instance. You're saying a clerical error due to one thing or another or other oversights that resulted in this infraction should be penalized by two spots in the entry draft. So when you note proportionality to the offence, perhaps you thought you were voting for simply the idea of a penalty being imposed as opposed to the severity of the penalty you seem to disagree with that's actually the vote at hand? I agree with both!! So my vote is still a yes !! 🤓 You break the rule then you pay. By you, I mean the offender. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 18, 2017 12:44:03 GMT -5
To Dave's point, the vote is about whether or not you want to impose the rule to reduce those teams' (mentioned and all others moving forward) entry draft positions by two places for the infractions described in the thread's first post. So you're not voting for the idea of a penalty being imposed - no one disputes the need for a penalty. You're voting for that specific penalty in this specific instance. You're saying a clerical error due to one thing or another or other oversights that resulted in this infraction should be penalized by two spots in the entry draft. So when you note proportionality to the offence, perhaps you thought you were voting for simply the idea of a penalty being imposed as opposed to the severity of the penalty you seem to disagree with that's actually the vote at hand? I agree with both!! So my vote is still a yes !! 🤓 You break the rule then you pay. By you, I mean the offender. Make sure you read everything I've posted today Frank...it may affect you in the future. |
|
