|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on May 6, 2013 14:34:48 GMT -5
I see potential for abuse during the current draft. An owner(s) drafts numerous high priced players and then bury them in the minors until their contract expires. The argument that players would not be relevant is bogus because some owners may want a high priced non-producer to meet the minimum cap. Unlike the NHL there is no deterent from burying these players as we are not talking real money.
I propose a maximum salary cap until the draft is over and then there will probably be no need for the cap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2013 14:55:46 GMT -5
But I agree with the earlier points if this rule was in place BEFORE we started drafting it would be fine, but now that we're ALREADY ALMOST HALF WAY some people would have drafted differentely with this rule in place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2013 15:00:38 GMT -5
I see potential for abuse during the current draft. An owner(s) drafts numerous high priced players and then bury them in the minors until their contract expires. The argument that players would not be relevant is bogus because some owners may want a high priced non-producer to meet the minimum cap. Unlike the NHL there is no deterent from burying these players as we are not talking real money. I propose a maximum salary cap until the draft is over and then there will probably be no need for the cap. I agree with you to a certain aspect but at the end of the day I don't want a Cap hit on my complet roster. The perfect ideal would be having a cap hit on just the main roster. But since we want to have everyone input on this matter I respect everyone opinion. Hopefully this time my side can pull a win. LOL!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 6, 2013 15:07:37 GMT -5
But I agree with the earlier points if this rule was in place BEFORE we started drafting it would be fine, but now that we're ALREADY ALMOST HALF WAY some people would have drafted differentely with this rule in place. I think it would affect the back half of the draft a lot more than the front half..... |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on May 6, 2013 15:08:41 GMT -5
I see potential for abuse during the current draft. An owner(s) drafts numerous high priced players and then bury them in the minors until their contract expires. The argument that players would not be relevant is bogus because some owners may want a high priced non-producer to meet the minimum cap. Unlike the NHL there is no deterent from burying these players as we are not talking real money. I propose a maximum salary cap until the draft is over and then there will probably be no need for the cap. Why would any GM do this though? Seems like a terribly dumb idea and strategy. Your suggesting GMs will instead of drafting a player that could help their team now or a prospect that could help them in the future they will purposely draft high paid players with the intent of burying them until their contract runs out? What possible benefit is there to this unlikely strategy? Also at 100M players can still have 30M in cap in the minors and looking at everyone's rosters and the remaining players available it would be near impossible to exceed 100M unless a few GMs draft every expensive guy left. It just seems obvious to me that a 100M cap would have no impact and affect no one. I could be completely wrong, but I just dont see GMs loading up on bad (not really any good ones left) high paid players and the GMs worried about this happening are thinking hypothetically when in reality it is difficult if not impossible to make any rational arguement why drafting bad high paid players and purposely burying them makes any sense or provides a benefit in any way. The GM would just be shooting himself in the foot and setting himself up to lose players on waivers or waste picks on old overpaid guys who will never contribute to their team. Sorry guys not trying to argue here and personally have nothing against a 90M cap since it wouldnt affect me in any way. I just fail to see the logic in anyones posts on this matter since teams are only hurting themself by being over the cap and drafting waiver eligible guys into their minors. I hear the arguement Canucks that teams might want a high priced player to meet the floor, but why would a team over the cap continue drafting waiver eligible high paid players? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2013 15:18:03 GMT -5
Some gm might draft a player with a big cap later on the draft since they have built a very cheap and young team. But what's wrong with that ?? What's wrong with bringing the cap hit to the minimum required. Also I rather just count the Cap hit require for just my main roster then my complete team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on May 6, 2013 15:36:27 GMT -5
I'm with Bryuns and Oilkings on this one. Not a fan of changing rules midway and i fail to see any advantage in trying to bury a high priced contract. Really the entire waiver process makes this "strategy" irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 6, 2013 15:37:00 GMT -5
i changed my mind and went ahead and voted....
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 7, 2013 7:54:05 GMT -5
Majority voted for no overall cap.
Thank you all for your comments.
|
|
