Salary Floor Penalty

[Dave (PLK)]

now that we have voted in favour of a penalty

please vote on the penalty you would like to see invoked.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

This is a cumulative penalty as well so it's 2 spots for every week you aren't compliant.

We also need to consider if a team does not own a 1st or 2nd.

Just throwing something out there, but what about this:

If you are under the floor then the floor will be raised by 1M next season for each week you are not compliant.

If you are over the ceiling then the ceiling will be lowered by 1M next season for each week you are not compliant.

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

I voted other, I feel like 2 spots per week is harsh I'm ok with 1 spot per week of being non compliant

[Dave (PLK)]

Oct 18, 2017 12:52:23 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

This is a cumulative penalty as well so it's 2 spots for every week you aren't compliant.

We also need to consider if a team does not own a 1st or 2nd.

Just throwing something out there, but what about this:

If you are under the floor then the floor will be raised by 1M next season for each week you are not compliant.

If you are over the ceiling then the ceiling will be lowered by 1M next season for each week you are not compliant.

interesting idea for sure...as you are right about teams that don't own their 1st or 2nd.

[Deleted]

I vote that they have to spend the day with frank as the penalty all jokes.

[Deleted]

I suggested "other" in the previous poll so I'll stick with that.

2 spots down in the first round (or next avaliable year's 1st round pick) for the team not reaching the cap floor,

AND

5 spots down in the first round (or next available year's 1st round pick) for every offending team that has × amount of cap dollars in their minor system (waiver eligible players only).

We would have to discuss the $ amount and do some analysis but the point would be to penalize only the most extreme offenders as it does make sense to keep some waiver eligible players in the minors for injury call up purposes.

Again, the difference between 2 and 5 spots is to offset the player values found in the draft in their respective draft positions. It assumes the teams with high cap hits in the minors will draft lower that the cap floor teams.

I'll vote "other" later today. Tapatalk doesn't show the poll voting button!

[Djurgardens]

I think like any penalty there's got to be latitude for warnings and degrees of penalty within the penalty.

Given that there's twenty-four teams a drop of two places for a bottom dwelling team in our second round, is still a hit in the NHL's first.

I also think the first week of the season should reflect a grace period for teams who have been warned that they will incur a penalty in the second week. And I think the penalty should start in our third round given it equates in part to the NHL's second round which still holds very good value.

I think there should be a graduated system that begins with a warning to non-compliant teams notifying that a warning is being issued that includes notification that if by the end of the first week of the regular season a team remains non-compliant that dropping the club two places in the third round for the first offence will be issued. This will be subsequently followed by two places in the second round for the second offence and two places in the first round for the third offence.

If there is a fourth offence then a review of ownership should take place keeping in mind we are - as experience informs us - stewards in the truest sense. These are "our clubs" but in many instances there's turnover. It's consistent with the notion of rules safeguarding conduct that we safeguard the object of our conduct, namely the clubs we run.

My 2 cents.

[Deleted]

My 2 cents remain the same. The salary floor + is a disadvantage for teams trying to rebuild as is the 70 player max b/c it's not like they have extra NHLers just hanging around most times.

I think the floor should be the NHL floor in real life while keeping the max + 10 stays the same.

The main reason I think there should be a penalty enforced is there was high salaries available for late waiver draft picks.

Trying to say you are going to rule with an iron fist b/c there was a penalty is a mistake IMO. The offseason and in season is two totally different things. People should be compliant with the rules during the season but offseason things tend to go smoother being lenient.

I suggest a roster submission before the season starts.

As far a penalties I think something needs to be written out before hand from here on out while I suggest the offending teams go back and pick some of those guys up to hit the salary floor and adjust fantrax from week 1 and be given a warning with a drop of a few spots of a mid pick since there seems to be a grey area that was exploited.

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2017 13:10:18 GMT -5 WillyBilly (Tire Fires) said:

I voted other, I feel like 2 spots per week is harsh I'm ok with 1 spot per week of being non compliant

I'm with Ottawa on this one

[Dave (PLK)]

Abbotsford, Barrie, Helsinki, Inuvik, Kokanee, Medvescak, Metcalfe, St. Petersburg, South Carolina,
Toronto

VOTE PLEASE!!

[Golden Seals]

right now i'd say if we are enforcing these penalties, we should use the penalty we have had in the rules since the beginning, lose 2 spots.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2017 9:14:38 GMT -5 Golden Seals said:

right now i'd say if we are enforcing these penalties, we should use the penalty we have had in the rules since the beginning, lose 2 spots.

Then modify the rule books for future penality!! If so I agree !!

[Dave (PLK)]

Oct 23, 2017 8:57:30 GMT -5 Dave (PLK) said:

Abbotsford, Barrie, Helsinki, Inuvik, Kokanee, Medvescak, Metcalfe, St. Petersburg,
Toronto

VOTE PLEASE!!

[Deleted]

Oct 18, 2017 13:47:47 GMT -5 Djurgardens said:

I think like any penalty there's got to be latitude for warnings and degrees of penalty within the penalty.

Given that there's twenty-four teams a drop of two places for a bottom dwelling team in our second round, is still a hit in the NHL's first.

I also think the first week of the season should reflect a grace period for teams who have been warned that they will incur a penalty in the second week. And I think the penalty should start in our third round given it equates in part to the NHL's second round which still holds very good value.

I think there should be a graduated system that begins with a warning to non-compliant teams notifying that a warning is being issued that includes notification that if by the end of the first week of the regular season a team remains non-compliant that dropping the club two places in the third round for the first offence will be issued. This will be subsequently followed by two places in the second round for the second offence and two places in the first round for the third offence.

If there is a fourth offence then a review of ownership should take place keeping in mind we are - as experience informs us - stewards in the truest sense. These are "our clubs" but in many instances there's turnover. It's consistent with the notion of rules safeguarding conduct that we safeguard the object of our conduct, namely the clubs we run.

My 2 cents.

This is my vote. However, I don't agree with the first week of the season being a grace period by terminology. But in principle of issuing a warning for first offense, then yes. But this warning should be able to be received at any week during the season. So +1 for this idea

[Dave (PLK)]

this is the Penalty System in another league I'm (and some of you) are in (ADHL):

Penalty System for going over/under the cap:

For going over the cap:

If after roster lock in a given matchup a team is over the cap, their team is effectively disqualified and they lose all matchups that week. That's a first infraction.

For each additional week of non-cap-compliance during the same season, on top of being disqualified for that week, the team is docked $1mil in cap space for the remainder of the season.

If any single GM allows his team to be non-cap-compliant for five or more weeks in a season, the GM is removed from the league.

For going under the cap floor:

If after roster lock in a given matchup a team is under the cap, the GM is given a warning.

Their team is NOT disqualified for that week.

For each additional week of non-cap-compliance during the same season, the team will be assigned a one-spot-drop draft penalty, where all draft picks owned by that GM at the draft drop one spot post-lottery.

If any single GM allows his team to be non-cap-compliant for five or more weeks in a season, the GM is removed from the league.