|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 1, 2014 21:59:27 GMT -5
The league attempts to arrive at a mutually acceptable cap subtraction.
That subtraction would be next year's ufa ? And not able to be signed by anyone until next year?
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Aug 1, 2014 22:31:19 GMT -5
I thought giving teams the extra 5% cap was to give them some extra room to work with. I don't think teams should be allowed to go over this to retain RFAs, that defeats the purpose of the extra 5%. Teams should be given the option to sign their players to contracts during RFA to get their savings if it would help them, but being allowed to go over this to retain an RFA (when you can't to bid on an RFA/UFA) doesn't really make sense to me.
Edit: For the record the NHL allows teams go 10% over the cap for the off-season. I could see doing this (I think we talked about it before but determined we don't have as much flexibility to move players which is why we use 5%), but if we start allowing teams to go like $10+ mil over cap to retain RFAs it's going to cause problems. Also, no matter what is decided on.. If a team does lose a player for cap issues when the season starts, I would think there would be a quick bidding round so someone could acquire them.. I wouldn't want a player to be out of the league the whole year because a team couldn't afford them.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 7:00:36 GMT -5
Teams need to manage their cap and it is expected that they will do so. If a team cannot become cap compliant there will be intervention from the league but it will not be mutually agreed to. This cannot be used as a mechanism in which a team that is over the cap benefits from shedding an albatross contract. Here are my thoughts: 1) GMs need to be cap compliant 1 week prior to the start of the season. 2) If they are not, the league will vote on the player(s) that will be removed. The league can provide a list of multiple options. If the overage is <3M then the situation should be easily corrected with the loss of one player. If there is a significant overage some of the voting options may include one player and other multiple players. While this process is punitive, it is not meant to, nor will it used for, totally screwing a player by taking his last 3 years worth of players who were 1st round picks to satisfy a 3M overage. The voting options will be made up of everyday players though and not Johnny Albatross-Contract. 3) Once voted on, this player(s) will be made available to all in a 1 round special UFA. 4) The team who was over the cap will be further penalized by the loss of draft pick(s) and franchise points. 5) Bottom line:
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Aug 2, 2014 9:07:56 GMT -5
Time to play a little game I like to call
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 2, 2014 9:41:00 GMT -5
Nj is not the safest egg in the nest this year either... I only see two, maybe three teams that are possibly 'in cap trouble' "pack your gear Bobrovsky...you're going to a new precinct'
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 2, 2014 9:43:17 GMT -5
And now all of a sudden the 'league votes' on something?? I'm taken aback here !
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Aug 2, 2014 9:56:21 GMT -5
Here is another problem.. Say a team has $6 mil in cap and a bunch of RFAs to sign. They could put a $5.9 bid on an rfa (using up the rest of their cap) and then still have the ability to sign all their RFAs. I still fail to see why we should be letting teams go over this extra cap we are already given. I agree with what you said about taking players, etc. but a week before the season is going to cause problems if the team still has to sign a bunch of minor leaguers that they couldn't because of cap.. It's going to hold everything up. Teams should need to be cap compliant (which is still 5% over true cap) by the time they need to bid on UFAs or suffer a penalty for that as well. In addition, say I have an over 30 rfa and a good team bids $4.9 on them. I retain the player because I don't want a late 3rd for said player. It seems like all I really have to lose at this point is a draft pick. Yea I will lose a player, but who is to say that RFA won't be the one that's taken from my team as penalty? There are plenty of over 30 RFAs I would take a chance holding rather than taking a late pick, especially if all I have to lose at the end is that overpaid player.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 10:41:21 GMT -5
I am not sure I follow you here Ian. Teams will be prohibited from participating in UFA if they are over the cap. I think that is what I stated in a previous post.
Bottom line is the over-priced over 30 RFAs that you are mentioning are not necessarily the ones that would be cut loose by the league vote. Let's say I was 5.5 over the cap at the cutoff for being cap compliant. Tyler Myers (who isn't a FA at present has a cap hit of 5.625M so if the league voted him as the player I should lose to become cap compliant then he would be gone and I would get nothing for him.
If I am still missing something please let me know.
Thanks, Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Aug 2, 2014 11:09:27 GMT -5
I kind of was talking about two different things. Here is what I am taking from what you said earlier.. If a team has $1 mil in cap space and 10 RFAs to sign, they are allowed to sign them all, even if it takes them over the extra 5% they are given (this is what I don't agree with). Now let's say there is a team has $6 mil in cap (any number really) and 10 RFAs to sign. That is clearly not enough to sign all their RFAs, but they will be allowed to do so. In addition to this, let's say this team puts a $6 mil bid on another player before they have to retain any of their RFAs.. I think this is the important part: We are basically going to be allowing teams to use any available cap to bid on other peoples RFAs because they know they will be able to retain theirs no matter what... And that's not right As far as UFA.. I was saying a penalty should be imposed if a team doesn't have enough cap to put bids on minor leaguers to fill out their roster when the last round comes. How it currently stands, we could be a week before the season with a team that has $10 mil in cap to shed and needs to add a number of minor leaguers to get to the minimum. The extra 5% is there so teams have some wiggle room, allowing teams to go over it in RFA is going to cause problems down the road in both UFA and right before the season starts.. It's also going to allow teams to bid up other teams RFAs because we are basically telling them you need $0 to retain your own RFA (until a week before the season.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear before or if I'm still not. If so just let me know and I'll try to think of another way to phrase it haha sometimes explaining things through text can be confusing
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 2, 2014 12:05:40 GMT -5
Young ian,
What you are describing is clearly a scenario in which a nefarious team owner attempts to 'game' the system. In the past, as Glenn has referenced in an earlier thread that i bumped for just this reason, there have been teams using the rfa process to bid and collude. What you are describing is a similar type of gaming or skirting the rules.
Glenn has indeed hit on the right tool to combat this and punish teams trying to game the sim this way, and that is using a league vote to take ANY other roster player AND possibly take picks and f points as well. I like it and think it will deter any team owner from 'overbidding' or trying to use the rfa process 'illegally'
|
|
|
Post by Alex-Edmonton on Aug 2, 2014 12:29:48 GMT -5
hey guys not sure where to post this. if you need to get hold of me my email is hornsrbest@gmail.com. I may not be regular checking stuff over the next bit although I will be wanting the distraction from life. My wife has been cheating on me and it looks like my marriage is over. I have been very forgiving and believe it or not she is leaving me. I am a little blown away right now. As I said I would love a distraction so talking hockey is good. Just please be patient with me.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 12:49:35 GMT -5
hey guys not sure where to post this. if you need to get hold of me my email is hornsrbest@gmail.com. I may not be regular checking stuff over the next bit although I will be wanting the distraction from life. My wife has been cheating on me and it looks like my marriage is over. I have been very forgiving and believe it or not she is leaving me. I am a little blown away right now. As I said I would love a distraction so talking hockey is good. Just please be patient with me. Sorry to hear that Alex. Chin up old bean. It must appear pretty bleak right now but things will start looking up soon!
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 12:51:27 GMT -5
I kind of was talking about two different things. Here is what I am taking from what you said earlier.. If a team has $1 mil in cap space and 10 RFAs to sign, they are allowed to sign them all, even if it takes them over the extra 5% they are given (this is what I don't agree with). Now let's say there is a team has $6 mil in cap (any number really) and 10 RFAs to sign. That is clearly not enough to sign all their RFAs, but they will be allowed to do so. In addition to this, let's say this team puts a $6 mil bid on another player before they have to retain any of their RFAs.. I think this is the important part: We are basically going to be allowing teams to use any available cap to bid on other peoples RFAs because they know they will be able to retain theirs no matter what... And that's not right As far as UFA.. I was saying a penalty should be imposed if a team doesn't have enough cap to put bids on minor leaguers to fill out their roster when the last round comes. How it currently stands, we could be a week before the season with a team that has $10 mil in cap to shed and needs to add a number of minor leaguers to get to the minimum. The extra 5% is there so teams have some wiggle room, allowing teams to go over it in RFA is going to cause problems down the road in both UFA and right before the season starts.. It's also going to allow teams to bid up other teams RFAs because we are basically telling them you need $0 to retain your own RFA (until a week before the season. Sorry if I wasn't being clear before or if I'm still not. If so just let me know and I'll try to think of another way to phrase it haha sometimes explaining things through text can be confusing Do you think it would make it better if we forbid the matching GM from trading that player to get under the cap? I think it might address some of what you are referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 2, 2014 13:18:58 GMT -5
Man, this is all too confusing now. However the NHL handles it.....lets get a damn policy together just like that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Alaska on Aug 2, 2014 13:21:33 GMT -5
Forgive me if I'm wrong in interpreting what you're suggesting Glenn but wouldn't that penalize GMs who do not have cap issues? Personally, I have significant cap space and should be safe in retaining all of my RFAs. So if I were to match an offer put on one of my RFAs why should I not be able to trade that player if the right deal came along. Once again, I may be interpreting this wrong as I'm new and still getting the hang of the league logistics but wanted to put that out there incase I was not. I kind of was talking about two different things. Here is what I am taking from what you said earlier.. If a team has $1 mil in cap space and 10 RFAs to sign, they are allowed to sign them all, even if it takes them over the extra 5% they are given (this is what I don't agree with). Now let's say there is a team has $6 mil in cap (any number really) and 10 RFAs to sign. That is clearly not enough to sign all their RFAs, but they will be allowed to do so. In addition to this, let's say this team puts a $6 mil bid on another player before they have to retain any of their RFAs.. I think this is the important part: We are basically going to be allowing teams to use any available cap to bid on other peoples RFAs because they know they will be able to retain theirs no matter what... And that's not right As far as UFA.. I was saying a penalty should be imposed if a team doesn't have enough cap to put bids on minor leaguers to fill out their roster when the last round comes. How it currently stands, we could be a week before the season with a team that has $10 mil in cap to shed and needs to add a number of minor leaguers to get to the minimum. The extra 5% is there so teams have some wiggle room, allowing teams to go over it in RFA is going to cause problems down the road in both UFA and right before the season starts.. It's also going to allow teams to bid up other teams RFAs because we are basically telling them you need $0 to retain your own RFA (until a week before the season. Sorry if I wasn't being clear before or if I'm still not. If so just let me know and I'll try to think of another way to phrase it haha sometimes explaining things through text can be confusing Do you think it would make it better if we forbid the matching GM from trading that player to get under the cap? I think it might address some of what you are referring to.
|
|