St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 17:11:02 GMT -5
I think I've brought this up in the past, but can't remember - doesn't matter, I'm brining it up now. We need to end the practice of trading cash.
I veto'd the Nebraska/Vegas trade just to bring light to this issue. Trades are fine and fun but the integrity of this league is the salary cap. Literally giving someone a 7.2% increase in their salary cap in exchange for two draft picks is, in my opinion, against the spirit of the league. I think the fun of this league is seeing how each of us can manage $275 and 39 roster spots a year. These types of trades throw that out the window entirely.
Nebraska now has a budget of $318 for this season. That's $43 more than our supposed "salary cap" and destroys the integrity of the cap. I say this as someone who had a similar cap number last year and I speak from experience having seen the absurd roster I was able to assemble. That's not what this league is supposed to be about and it's not something that should continue, in my opinion.
Allowing any one owner to spend 15.6% more than any other owner (and that's assuming Tim doesn't make any more trades to gain more cap space) is not fair. We all build our rosters in adherence to the $275 limit each year and many of us take other teams salary cap situations into account when we plan for free agency. Let's take this summer as a real world example. Nebraska spent $25 on David Backes and I know for a fact that I am not alone in thinking that I let him have Backes at that price because it pretty much depleted him of money to spend on other free agents. Now, that's all changed. Without giving up anyone from his roster he's suddenly got a $20 bonus dropped into his account and can once again bid on multiple free agents. That's not fair and it's against the spirit of this league.
Finally, trading cash takes away the punitive aspect of a bad contract. The way this league should run is that if you sign a player to a bad contract you are stuck with it unless you can find someone to trade it to. The buyout option is simply to create roster space and offers no cap relief. Trading to get more cash, though, takes away the sting from a bad contract because now you can simply sell off draft picks, or players, to get enough cap space to cover the bad contract (or a good portion of it) and essentially erase it from your books.
I suggest we do one of two things: 1. Ban trades that send cash/cap space one way or another. The exception to this would be trades where you are paying a portion (or all) or a players salary you are trading to another team. If I find someone to take David Clarkson this season and I agree to pay $10 of his $15 salary, that's perfectly acceptable.
2. We limit the amount you can exceed the cap. The cap is set at $275 each year but if Option #1 is unpalatable to most of you perhaps you'd be willing to set a limit on how far any one team can exceed the cap. Maybe that number is a round number like $300 as the true ceiling or maybe it's a percentage and you cannot exceed the cap by more than 10% ($302) at any time. Whatever the case, it would still allow for trades like this but would limit it.
I prefer #1 because I think it would make things more interesting in the league by holding us all to the same financial standard each season but I am certainly open for debate/discussion. For clarity, I would say this rule is effective in the future only and all trades that have already been made be left alone. Within a few years it would all sort itself out and we'd be on the same level.
|
|
|
Post by Oslo Mastodon on Aug 28, 2015 17:15:46 GMT -5
Coming from someone who has always enjoyed buying draft picks and prospects, and the person who wrote the foundation of all the rules for this league, I would have to agree with Doug.
I am no longer the head honcho, so I will only speak for my vote, which would be that you can only send cash to cover a contract (ie $10 with David Clarkson). Therefore, cash being sent cannot exceed the total amount of contract value also being sent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 17:39:19 GMT -5
I think making a drastic change is always a bad idea. That said, I am fully aware that I am exploiting a part of our league that is unregulated. I think that if we make changes, they should be gradual, as some of us plan for years in advance as to how to approach finding success in this league.
A few thoughts:
1) I agree with Doug. I think we should add limits to cap space in trades. I think his first draft of options is a bit extreme, but I think it's something we should talk about.
2) I don't believe that anyone trading for cap is really getting that much of a competitive advantage, if any at all. This would be different if some managers weren't in it for the long haul, but this league requires us to pay for past decisions/mistakes.
3) I didn't intend on trading for this much cap space, but I made trades for players that were given ridiculous contracts (like Bobby Ryan), expiring deals of unwanted players, and by sending out things that are valued by others (players, ELs, and draft picks). I bid on Backes knowing I was going to trade for cap space.
4) the league as a total still has the same available cap. So trading for cap doesn't really affect the integrity of the league.
5) NHL teams are allowed to trade cap in deals (to cover bad contracts)... Though they can only make two of such trades... But that means there are 60 potential deals that include salary being covered.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 18:42:16 GMT -5
I am fully aware that I am exploiting a part of our league that is unregulated. 2) I don't believe that anyone trading for cap is really getting that much of a competitive advantage, if any at all. 3) I didn't intend on trading for this much cap space, but I made trades for players that were given ridiculous contracts (like Bobby Ryan), expiring deals of unwanted players, and by sending out things that are valued by others (players, ELs, and draft picks). I bid on Backes knowing I was going to trade for cap space.We are all guilty of exploiting this rule (trading to gain cap space) at one time or another. All of us. So this is not directed at you or anyone else. But, this trade between you and Vegas, and your comments here, have shined a light on the problem and brought it into focus. You intentionally spent more on a UFA than you should have (left yourself with $8 and four MAJOR roster spots to fill) knowing that you could bail yourself out of cap hell and bad contracts by making this trade. You had $8 to fill four spots, now you have $23 to fill three spots. That gives you a competitive advantage - period. When teams are spending more than they have, and putting themselves in untenable cap situations KNOWING they can simply make a trade to get cap space and bail themselves out without having to lose a single player from their roster...that's when we know we have a problem that needs to be fixed. Again, I'm not suggesting we undo anything that's already done but I do suggest we stop this now so that we will all be on the same page by 2018-2019, which I think is plenty of time for the market to correct itself and for all of us to adjust our rosters accordingly. We've all taken advantage of this system in the past but in my opinion this was the straw that broke the camels' back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 18:44:57 GMT -5
I think I misspoke and used the word "would" instead of "could"... But lots of managers are interested in acquiring draft picks for cap space. Draft picks are a valuable commodity that I don't value as much as others.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Aug 28, 2015 19:08:02 GMT -5
I'm on my phone and will comment in full at a future date, but I don't mind the idea of not being able to exceed $300 (for example). I would also suggest a rule similar to that of the MLB's luxury tax which still lets a manager go over if they choose, but being punished for it somehow.
For the record, I don't like the idea of selling draft picks (well aware of irony here) but I have learned to live with it while managing to put out competitive teams on a yearly basis. At no point has anything another team has done in the league caused me to flush an entire season. As Doug's team showed us all last year, you can have every great player on your roster but at the end of the day it doesn't guarantee you the trophy.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 19:17:14 GMT -5
As Doug's team showed us all last year, you can have every great player on your roster but at the end of the day it doesn't guarantee you the trophy. True, but it does guarantee you a full season of poleaxing every other team and a first-round bye. After that, fluke's will happen. Oslo, Morweena, Nebraska and I are all on board with making a change. Who will join us?
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Aug 28, 2015 19:27:06 GMT -5
My take for what it is worth.
I have always maintained that we try and emulate the running of an NHL team as much as possible. That is what the intent of the league was supposed to be and to date it's gone fairly well. As has been mentioned, we have all manipulated this rule but I do feel that we need to get this under control and I have suggestion on how to do so. The only question will be how and when to implement.
The way I see it, the cap should be the cap and once the season starts you should not be over it. If you have bad contracts, have made bad trades, whatever, too bad. No one knows this more than me. I have and have had some crappy contracts on my team. Hell, I had Mike Richards on my team for years at $30 for Christ's sake but without a buyout option I kept him and dealt with him and had to maneuver my roster, deals, and signings accordingly. Point being, come opening night you are at $275. To get there means making roster choices and decisions as it should be for a GM of a team.
My idea is to make a team's Minor league roster not count against the Cap so that if a team is over it, they would have to move a player from the Major roster down and bring another player up that has a lesser value. In some cases that may mean bringing up an EL player and there by activating his salary ahead of schedule but as my dad would say..."tough titty". There has to be some measure of control and some penalty for being over the cap. In the case of Doug's Dream Team last year, which was a joke when put up against the cap, there needed to be a system where if he's going to have Crosby, Ovechkin, Taveres, Pavelski, etc. then he needed to have some crap in there as well to balance it out.
This idea may need to be fleshed out a bit but ultimately this is what needs to be happen in order to have competitive balance and to keep some of these sketchy deals that have bailed us all out from happening. We need to be accountable for what we spend and be aware that if you cannot make a signing because of previous bad contracts then tough luck.
Have at it and if you question my credentials see the trinket at the bottom of my post.
|
|
|
Post by Oslo Mastodon on Aug 28, 2015 19:29:51 GMT -5
I dont like the idea of doing a luxury or limiting the salary cap, just would only want cap to be exchanged to offset contract values being exchanged - and only for the current season (ie. Player A $10 / 3y, traded with 2015 $10, cannot add $X in any other year).
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 21:19:54 GMT -5
It sounds like we have a general consensus that this needs to change, one way or another. The Commissioner made an executive decision to change the league from a win per category league to a one win league so I trust him to use his best judgement again in this case and am comfortable living with whatever he decides. As long as we all know the rules, and the apply equally to all of us, I have no problem with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 23:01:26 GMT -5
I don't dislike our current system. But I'm open to discussing possible changes and I could see how this could be something that we could look at tweaking.
I think the rules we currently have in place have served us well.
|
|
|
Post by Melbourne Bushrangers on Aug 29, 2015 1:25:18 GMT -5
I am uncomfortable with teams being able to spend more than 275 at any point. Helping to grease the gears of a trade by trading a player plus a portion of cash to cover that salary is something I can live with but maybe there should be a hard cap not far off the 275.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 29, 2015 9:12:02 GMT -5
Oslo, Nebraska, Morweena, Simi, Melbourne and I all agree that we need to limit teams ability to trade cash. That's six and is enough, I think, to move forward (especially considering that not one owner has posted to say they like things the way they are and are against changes). At this point it's a matter of what type of change we make and when we implement it.
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Aug 29, 2015 11:29:37 GMT -5
For clarification...why was the issue brought up with the Vegas/Nebraska trade but not mine? I mean, I essentially bought a draft pick too, but it's ok since I sent two players along with it? I'm not sure I see the difference.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 29, 2015 11:39:42 GMT -5
When the NHL saw that teams were circumventing the cap by signing players to deals they knew they would not play out simply to lower their annual cap hit, they put a stop to it while also allowing all deals that had already been signed to stand. Our league has seen that teams are circumventing the cap by trading draft picks for cash and we've acted to stop it while also allowing all deals that have already been completed to stand. Now that the Commissioner has frozen cash trades in the future until we can reach a consensus on how to proceed, here's the three options we have presented so far: 1. Hard cap of $275 This is a true salary cap, there are no exceptions to spend more than that in any given year and puts all owners on equal footing. We'd all have exactly the same amount of draft picks in a given year, same amount of roster spaces on both our MAJOR and MINOR teams and the same amount of cash to spend on players to fill those roster spots. 2. Soft cap of $275 / Hard Cap of $ Each team would be assigned a cap of $275 each season (the soft cap) but would be allowed to make trades to acquire additional cap space up to a predetermined amount ($ ) which would serve as the hard cap. 3. MINOR roster does not count against the cap This proposal, put forth by Simi, purports that we all have a hard cap of $275 but that only players on your MAJOR roster would have their salaries count towards that cap. Any player, TERM or ELC, that is on your MINOR roster would not count against your cap. If you have a fourth option, or a variation of one of those options, please post it so that we can include it in the discussion going forward. If I've accidentally omitted an option, please let me know so that I can edit this post to include it. ---------------------------------------------------- I prefer #1 because it's fair to all of us. We all have exactly the same resources at our disposal and our success would be entirely dependent on our ability to manage the cap, draft and roster space. Of the other two, I prefer #3 because I like the idea of maneuvering our rosters to be cap compliant while still allowing us the flexibility and creativity to come up with new ways to build the roster. I don't like #2 because it has little teeth to it. Why set the cap at $275 if the real cap is $300 or more? Just set the cap at the number you're truly not allowed to exceed and leave it at that. There is a finite amount of cash in this league and it's impossible for all 12 teams to exceed the cap at once. For every dollar one team exceeds the cap, another must lower their cap by a dollar. Allowing some teams to exceed the cap by X amount at the expense of other teams, even if it is voluntary on behalf of the second team, is not fair to the other 10 owners not involved in the deal who would find themselves at a disadvantage, financially, through no fault of their own.
|
|