|
Post by PensGM on Aug 22, 2003 0:49:10 GMT -5
What the hell is going on with the teams and the salary cap. I would take on salary if need be, and I am sure that other teams would too.
As far as I am concerned, the teams going over just didn't make any effort to get under the cap.
If that is the case, you aren't punishing the GMs, just the team when someone else will eventually have to take over.
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Aug 22, 2003 2:25:16 GMT -5
referring to the punishment: maybe so, but rules are rules
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 22, 2003 14:25:26 GMT -5
The rules is the rules argument isn't applicable here. When you punish a GM that doesn't care, then it isn't punishing the GM. Taking a player from a team doesn't solve inactive GMs.
Four times teams have lost players, and not once did I see a leaguewide email suggesting that players were available.
Taking the player away solved what...it got the team under the cap but didn't solve the fact that the GMs weren't active enough to solve the problem. So if the GM ever gets replaced due to inactivity then the team suffers, not the GM.
It is frickin ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Aug 22, 2003 15:22:48 GMT -5
in a sense, how can you punish just a GM? the only way would to fire him, anything else done would just punish his team.
Some might say that if you take away they're highest paid player, you're punishing both the GM and the Team. I know if i lost my highest paid player, I'd feel that my team and myself were punished. Some GMs might take the result of losing their player different than others. Right now I think the best way is to take their highest paid player.
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 22, 2003 16:16:26 GMT -5
That is where I think you are wrong Calgary. If a GM cared enough about his team being over the cap, he would take steps to rectify it. You and I both know this. So the GM isn't getting penalized. Because GMs who care about their teams try to improve them. Are you saying there was no market for Jagr, Tkachuk and Yashin? A guy couldn't trade these guys away? I think it pathetic that no attempt was made to get under the cap, and that the release of the player accomplishes nothing. As, what I consider a good GM(Maybe not as good as Cal or Clint, but just the same ), I would feel like crap to think I would lose a player for nothing if I didn't cut salary. What is the only reason a GM doesn't trade to get under the cap? He doesn't care. Now, I don't know all the answers and what you could possibly do, but if a GM isn't responsive, then wrecking the team isn't the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Aug 22, 2003 21:25:01 GMT -5
I kinda agree with Penguins here. It probably would sit fine if it was just the one team that gets hit a year. But to have 4 teams and 3 within 2 weeks then it's getting serious.
Why not allow the released player to enter free agency now as a RFA, and the winning team that gets the bid has to submit a reasonable compensation package to the losing team. Hence the one team gets a superstar adn the other gets a couple of cheaper players but still within reason to keep the team afloat for future or otherwise.
I think that would be wiser than UFA at seasons end. At least teams with a budget can get a superstar and the poorly GMed team remains in good condition but not as good as before.
I'm not saying that for Jagr a team has to compensate with Gaborik, but maybe a playable pro guy, a dark horse prospect and a late pick? SOMETHING...
And if a GM has this happen twice, FIRE the lazy beotch. Although I'd like to know with Montreal losing Yzerman, if he was at all effected by the blackout in the East, because that may explain why he did not change his lines/roster.
Ken My two cents
|
|
|
Post by Jackets on Aug 22, 2003 22:22:34 GMT -5
hmm shouldn't we be first asking why these GMs are not doing their job? Maybe is not that they don't care but being occupied by things?
???I don't remember exactly who the "suspended" players are... aren't most of those players signed during off season as UFA? If that's the case I don't see why teams should get compensations (suspended players being RFA) as Ken suggested since GMs mis-managed.
I know the rules already said you can't make offers to FAs if it brings you over the cap, but I think we might have to bring it a step further: no UFA offers can bring the total salary to approach within 2 mil of the cap. In theory we don't need this but if the GMs can't do their job properly then the league should do something about it.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Aug 22, 2003 23:05:02 GMT -5
Jagr, Yzerman, Tchachuk, and..... a goalie was it?
Anyway, my whole point about RFA - compensation was that even though it's bad GMs we aren't hurting the team for future GMs. Let's face it a bad GM won't last long.
And no, I don't like your idea too much of not being allowed to make offers that bring a team within $2M of the cap. $2M is a LOT of leeway. That's enough for 2 - 3 cheap injury callups. And with the IR system we have, there is absolutely NO excuse for a injury put me over wah wah wah....
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 23, 2003 0:50:05 GMT -5
The issue as I see it is GMs just not doing their jobs. The way I see it a GM should take reasonable steps to correct cap issues or be removed.
It wasn't one GM, so I think it is just guys that don't care about their teams that stay over the cap.
If they don't want to run their team, maybe someone else should do it, rather than strip the assets and screw the next guy.
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Aug 23, 2003 3:25:38 GMT -5
George, just curious, but how can you punish a GM without firing them, anything you do to them affects their team.
The way I'm going about this whole situation is with ease, Im not the commish, I'm just helping out. I don't want to make a drastic move here or there. this isn't my league, Im helping out Bryce since he's occupied with school and other things.
I completely agree with you, on if you cant control your team then you should be in charge of it. I dont really have any ideas on how to handle this other then the way its been handled in the past.
I think the GMs who have been affected here, are good GMs its just they were ignorant to the rules. Does this mean we fire them, or do we give them another chance?
in reference to putting these guys in a Free Agent pool(or something like that), that wouldn't be the best way to go. The same Gm could just as easy re-sign the player back for a little bit less money. They would've beaten the system.
Right now I think the best way to solve this would to just follow the rules, and the way these situations have been handled in the past. I only wish that this thing never happens again, it reflects poorly on a GM.
|
|
|
Post by habsgm on Aug 23, 2003 8:32:53 GMT -5
League wide ICQ's should be reserved for "League messages from on high" (commish or whomever is running the system). I rather find out what players are availabe on the open market on the message board - isn't that part of its function? Montreal posted a notice saying that it's top two overpaid stars are there for the taking, and several clubs were approached and negotiated with. No deal was made. I knew the club was flirting dangerously with the cap. It was a callup from the minors that put me over - I wasn't even aware until I saw Stevie Y's face smilin' on the front page. There was no advance notice as some clubs had - (St. L., Col, and NJ). So it's a case of rookie GM gets hosed in cap oversight. No excuses here. However, it is important other GM's realize that just because a GM isn't swinging deals all the time or online daily (unreliable internet connection) DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A SAD OR POOR GM. On a more positive note, the Habs are pleased that they sit in the middle of the Eastern pack, 5 points out of first place, have reestablished their powerplay (now one of the top clubs - where they once were down in the lower middle ranks), and are 1 glorious point ahead of Pittsburgh - who incidentally have a higher payroll by several million (a little less than an Yzerman type contract). That is all.
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 23, 2003 14:05:14 GMT -5
There is an easier solution, and of course nothing gets done without Bryce...
But for the future, here is my suggestion.
Step one: Don't release his top player. Suspend their top two players for two weeks.
Step two: If they don't get under the cap in two weeks then remove the GM.
The thing about being busy is that it takes 30 seconds to post that you will be away.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Aug 23, 2003 17:24:33 GMT -5
Eric,
It's simple enough to state that a Cap Violating RFA could not be bid on by his previous team. It's just that he gets minor compensation. I'd imagine most overpriced players can be traded if the price is right. But, most GMs expect too much for their stars, and hang on too long and hence violate the cap.
Tkachuk goes RFA, his old team cannot bid, a team wins the bidding and offers a compensation package that can be predetermined on the OV of the signing player.
80+OV = > playable NHLer under 35yrs, dark horse prospect as determined by a board, and a 5th rounder.
Better than having 4 superstars missing from the league for the whole year allowing teams a bie into the playoffs asince there are less superstars floating round to beat their team.
|
|
|
Post by edmontongm on Aug 24, 2003 1:52:12 GMT -5
Alright, I haven't said a word about this yet but I will now.
There is nothing wrong with having a strict cap. Tim (the Jackets GM) does a great job of being reasonable with RFA's. Which means that there shouldn't really be any reason why any team is over the cap.
If we all remember...this is the 2nd year in a row that Kirk has been in violation of this rule. The Leafs GM did something blatantly stupid (and I thought that maybe that trade should have possibly been revoked since it put him way over the cap). The other two (the Blues and Canadiens)...the Canadiens might have done the right thing by going over and letting Yzerman go...it released him for his contractual obligation and Yzerman isn't worth the money anymore. St. Louis might have done the same thing with Yashin...he's losing, and by losing Yashin for nothing releases him from his obligation there.
You're right...overpriced stars in this league aren't worth as much, but that's the dynamic of the league. UFA's are of value to many teams at the deadline who are looking to free up cash. I can't say that for many leagues (if any at all). NBA and NFL sure...but not in any FHL. I don't agree at all with the compensation request. I haven't seen any GM (except for the Leafs) fired for losing a player. Nor have I seen a GM leave for losing a player. Obviously this means that the GM's either aren't keeping much contact with the league, or they did what was necessary to keep doing what they need to.
|
|
|
Post by AVSGM on Aug 25, 2003 19:12:13 GMT -5
I know i don't post much on the message board i prefer not to be the out spoken one. However.....
My answer is a large fine first give them a warning and put them on the brink of going into the minuses most likely which is reason for being fired correct basically giving the GM a saving grace while not dismantling the team if he fails to fix the cap problem then good by you're gone. With reason. But if this is what is implement we should be giving a NEW GM A BONUS CASH SUM TO A TEAM THAT HAS LOST "THE SUM OF CASH DUE TO BEING OVER THE CAP" this way it's all about the GM'ing of the team and not getting ridding of superstars in a league that already dis-values superstars because of how much cash or contract levels they have. because the cap is set so low you can't breathe.
I feel like this is something that shouldn't be decided by one but put to a vote you need some good choices in the vote and it may need to be done in steps and not with one vote and popularity contest for one of the headings. Once a decision is made on what path should be taken between either, 1-Loose top player, 2-suspension, 3-large fine, 4-_____ whatever. Then a combinition of 2 maybe the best thing in order i have to go now. but happy reading.
Avs GM Kelly Morrow
PS. If i lost Bertuzzi because of a farm call up put me over i would be pissed off and i would quit this league. There should definetly be some sort of grace to a GM if that is why there over because of an injury and a call-up.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Aug 25, 2003 19:55:53 GMT -5
Hey Kelly,
It's called IR (Injury Reserve) that is your grace if you get an injury.
|
|
|
Post by edmontongm on Aug 25, 2003 22:40:36 GMT -5
While I can understand how many feel in regards to the cap issues, I should have mentioned this in my other post as well.
BRHL has one season per year. Bryce had made a great effort to expand the season's length so that many times you don't play for several days at a time (in fact so far this year, I didn't play for about 10 days in a row).
RULE PROPOSAL : The league (Bryce) should consider adding this to the rules - "If a GM declares that they are to be away for any length of time, they do not have to abide to salary cap because of FHLSimulator callups".
There is only one problem (that I have considered), and that's GM's constantly saying that they are away (it's happened in another league I'm in)...there should be an addition to that rules that states that if a GM is constantly away (discretionary), that losing a player would be under review.
This would protect the GM from losing a player, and protect the league's integrity by staying within the rules. It is not unfair if a team is not looking after it's own interest, and I think it's within the bounds of the league to remove the player. As discussed with many fellow FHLers from around the net, many who are commissioners, have agreed that the rules of this league are intense and strict. However it was almost 100% of agreement of people I discussed with, that this league ensures participation from it's members by that rule (either through trading, or creative managing). If you're not sending in lines, it's your own fault you lose Bertuzzi or any other player (was only an example as the Avs GM mentioned he'd quit if he lost Bertuzzi). If you're sending in lines, and being aware when you're so close to the cap, then there is a mistake, I'm sure that the league would be understanding (as FHL does sometimes have problems). However if it was to happen on consecutive times, then again, I think that is trying to circumvent the rules.
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 26, 2003 11:27:31 GMT -5
Well Clint,
One of the things that bugs me like I said is that a GM that will allow his top paid player stripped from his team without a single effort to trade the player, well that is just wrong.
I feel that ultimately that GM doesn't have time/inclination to take care of the team properly.
I didn't get one icq or an email stating that any of these players were available.(I may have considered trading a pick for Yashin to lose Bure or whatever)
So what does that mean? If we strip the player and the problem is an inactive GM(I am not saying that in all cases this is true, because I would possibly take on an expensive player just so I could lose Bure's salary.) then how does stripping a good player off a team hurt an inactive GM. It doesn't. So you take a resource off a team that will have a new GM one day, and they have to deal with someone else's mess. I don't think that fair.
I say that suspending their top TWO players until under the cap would work better, because if it lasts for longer than say 3 weeks, then the GM has no inclination to correct the problem...then you remove the guy.
I just can't see 4 GMs using strategic salary moves and accepting their top player removed and feel that they care about their team or the league.
|
|
|
Post by edmontongm on Aug 26, 2003 13:48:34 GMT -5
Well as I said initially:
Kirk defaulted his top paid player last year too...obviously he's still active in this league, or Bryce would have removed him. Sure there is a brother thing in question here, but remember that Ryan was removed without hesitation. If there was a serious question here about Kirk's interest or ability i'm sure he'd be removed.
Toronto was the only mistake and as I stated also in my first post that the trade maybe should have been rescinded. I think that by allowing the team to go 5 million over the cap was a serious problem already and the trade should have been voided...it wasn't and that was Bryce's discretion.
Montreal obviously has had no problem losing Steve Yzerman, by stating he's willing to make particular trades to take his team in a particular direction.
St. Louis losing Yashin is the only one I'm not sure about. Yashin did have a bad season in 02-03 and he was making 7.5 million. The Blues are winning without him too.
Talking about respect for the league though...I don't see much difference in you offering a 3rd round pick for Yashin in comparison to the Blues losing Yashin for nothing. You're grossly undervaluing the player, and that isn't good for future trading in the league in regards to high priced players.
And please tell me, what the difference between the rule that if a team goes bankrupt that the GM will be removed from the league (which is a trademark for 95% of the leagues I've seen...and that number is probably closer to 99%), in comparison to a team losing one player to free agency, when he could have the opportunity to resign him? When that GM could be removed (like the Leafs GM was). In the first case, the team has a much more significant problem to deal with, in which they have to give away players for nothing. (And in many cases, like the one I dealt with, it is more than one player you have to give away)...at least you only lose one player here.
And to answer your statement that a player not making any effort to trade a player...well NJ and Toronto are exempt from that. As for the reasons I stated above (Kirk has done this before, and the Leafs GM made a trade for a player and went so far over the cap with it, that it was not correctable). Yzerman is an older player making a lot of money, I think he was going to be a UFA this season anyway as I recall...so I don't think that the Canadiens have done anything wrong there. And I'm not sure about Yashin or the Blues choices, but I gave up a UFA center (Cassels), and two top prospects for Fedorov...I would rather lose the guy for nothing then take a mediocre pick, just because "at least I'd get something in return".
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 26, 2003 16:38:00 GMT -5
That answer Clint is way off base, IMO.
There was NO effort by ANY of the GMs to try to rectify the situation. Who knows what kind of return any of the players would bring? I suggest bringing a pick would be better than nothing, but who is to say that a team like Buffalo couldn't pony up something decent for the player.
The only answer is that no effort was made in any of the situations to try to get under the cap. While it may have been on purpose by one GM, to me, that is the lazy way out.
In my mind it is blatant disregard for their team and for the league.
And I call all the GMs out on it too.(Not in a jerk kind of way...but in a for the better of the league.) If you are too lazy to send a leaguewide email to try to get under the cap, then why are you in the league?
Your team so good that losing your highest paid player for nothing is fine with you? That isn't good sense.(And Clint, remember what kind of value a 3rd in this league has when you can get a Radulov or Bayda or Miettinen etc etc)
Why do we all trade UFAs away at the deadline? So that we can get something, anything back.
|
|
|
Post by Jackets on Aug 26, 2003 22:02:38 GMT -5
Just a side note. One of the teams did try unload their "over the cap" player to me weeks ago but I reject the offer since is a little too pricey for my taste . So is not like all of them are lack of trying or lack of care.
|
|
|
Post by PensGM on Aug 26, 2003 23:27:57 GMT -5
Well, maybe I am coming off overly harsh, but I think that instead of taking their highest paid player, you could do several things that don't hurt the franchise for the long term. Like suspending or holding out their two highest paid players until under the cap.
That way the franchise wouldn't be so damaged.
|
|