Salary Retention - Poll

[Toronto Maple Leafs]

Jun 29, 2015 21:50:39 GMT -5 Montreal Canadiens said:

Jun 29, 2015 21:45:29 GMT -5 Toronto Maple Leafs said:

Im not referring to me at all ...just the sanctity and the continuity of rules period. Follow them and make changes at an appropriate time. Somebody please explain to Detroit what Sanctity and continuity means.

I'm just poking fun. 

Now, for the issue on the appropriate time of rule changes.  When would you suggest then?  If you say during the season, that's probably just as bad, if not worse, as teams make trades then.  I can see where you're coming from, but Florida has already explained what the rule is.  It doesn't affect anyone right now.  It just gives teams like you, myself, and the 28 other owners the flexibility to pull off deals.

No sweat at all Detroit...its never personal...its a free sim...I am just a rule stickler.

To answer the question the season ends either when the new one starts. WE can vote on rule changes, its healthy, but I would like all new rules to take effect for the following season.

I used this example in a message.
Lets say we are at game 57 and just did the All Star game. Then the league says we want to go to a 57 game season starting...NOW...lets vote. Is that fair? No its not for all the GM's that are just out of the playoffs. We very easily could have a vote for a 57 game season starting next season.....but not today.

I am actually voting against myself here because I think it is healthy for the league. Each GM can dump 3 guys....how many could I pick up? 9? Is it fair to all that I dump all the stars and then just weasel back to the salary capp world because of a rule change during the draft? I dont believe it is right. Thats all.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Jun 29, 2015 22:00:43 GMT -5 Toronto Maple Leafs said:

Jun 29, 2015 21:50:39 GMT -5 Montreal Canadiens said:

I'm just poking fun. 

Now, for the issue on the appropriate time of rule changes.  When would you suggest then?  If you say during the season, that's probably just as bad, if not worse, as teams make trades then.  I can see where you're coming from, but Florida has already explained what the rule is.  It doesn't affect anyone right now.  It just gives teams like you, myself, and the 28 other owners the flexibility to pull off deals.

No sweat at all Detroit...its never personal...its a free sim...I am just a rule stickler.

To answer the question the season ends either when the new one starts. WE can vote on rule changes, its healthy, but I would like all new rules to take effect for the following season.

I used this example in a message.
Lets say we are at game 57 and just did the All Star game. Then the league says we want to go to a 57 game season starting...NOW...lets vote. Is that fair? No its not for all the GM's that are just out of the playoffs. We very easily could have a vote for a 57 game season starting next season.....but not today.

I am actually voting against myself here because I think it is healthy for the league. Each GM can dump 3 guys....how many could I pick up? 9? Is it fair to all that I dump all the stars and then just weasel back to the salary capp world because of a rule change during the draft? I dont believe it is right. Thats all. 

So this rule would take place in the offseason of next year?

[San Jose Sharks]

"I used this example in a message.
Lets say we are at game 57 and just did the All Star game. Then the league says we want to go to a 57 game season starting...NOW...lets vote. Is that fair? No its not for all the GM's that are just out of the playoffs. We very easily could have a vote for a 57 game season starting next season.....but not today."

This example is not even relevant... that's mid way through the season compared to after the playoffs are over. If this isn't the time of year to make rule changes then when is?? I don't see where there is such a big issue with adding cap retention this offseason.

[Florida Panthers]

Jun 29, 2015 22:00:43 GMT -5 Toronto Maple Leafs said:

Jun 29, 2015 21:50:39 GMT -5 Montreal Canadiens said:

I'm just poking fun. 

Now, for the issue on the appropriate time of rule changes.  When would you suggest then?  If you say during the season, that's probably just as bad, if not worse, as teams make trades then.  I can see where you're coming from, but Florida has already explained what the rule is.  It doesn't affect anyone right now.  It just gives teams like you, myself, and the 28 other owners the flexibility to pull off deals.

No sweat at all Detroit...its never personal...its a free sim...I am just a rule stickler.

To answer the question the season ends either when the new one starts. WE can vote on rule changes, its healthy, but I would like all new rules to take effect for the following season.

I used this example in a message.
Lets say we are at game 57 and just did the All Star game. Then the league says we want to go to a 57 game season starting...NOW...lets vote. Is that fair? No its not for all the GM's that are just out of the playoffs. We very easily could have a vote for a 57 game season starting next season.....but not today.

I am actually voting against myself here because I think it is healthy for the league. Each GM can dump 3 guys....how many could I pick up? 9? Is it fair to all that I dump all the stars and then just weasel back to the salary capp world because of a rule change during the draft? I dont believe it is right. Thats all.

I think you are confused on what this means? You don't simply release a player and get no repercussions, in order to retain 50% salary cap you have to make a trade with another team and you would hold half their salary, you don't just drop them into free agency. For example, Jason Spezza is making 7 million on Arizona, Arizona then trades him to me and retains 50% salary. Arizona is responsible for 3.5 million and so am I. I don't see what you meant by dump 3 guys?

[Deleted]

Jun 29, 2015 22:00:43 GMT -5 Toronto Maple Leafs said:

Jun 29, 2015 21:50:39 GMT -5 Montreal Canadiens said:

I'm just poking fun. 

Now, for the issue on the appropriate time of rule changes.  When would you suggest then?  If you say during the season, that's probably just as bad, if not worse, as teams make trades then.  I can see where you're coming from, but Florida has already explained what the rule is.  It doesn't affect anyone right now.  It just gives teams like you, myself, and the 28 other owners the flexibility to pull off deals.

No sweat at all Detroit...its never personal...its a free sim...I am just a rule stickler.

To answer the question the season ends either when the new one starts. WE can vote on rule changes, its healthy, but I would like all new rules to take effect for the following season.

I used this example in a message.
Lets say we are at game 57 and just did the All Star game. Then the league says we want to go to a 57 game season starting...NOW...lets vote. Is that fair? No its not for all the GM's that are just out of the playoffs. We very easily could have a vote for a 57 game season starting next season.....but not today.

I am actually voting against myself here because I think it is healthy for the league. Each GM can dump 3 guys....how many could I pick up? 9? Is it fair to all that I dump all the stars and then just weasel back to the salary capp world because of a rule change during the draft? I dont believe it is right. Thats all.

You bring up an example that is clearly something that would never happen because it changes the dynamic of the season that everyone was currently in. If you want to make an example, create one that makes sense. 

Also, are you sure you are understanding the rule we are voting for? Because it honestly doesn't sound like you do, otherwise you would know that retaining salaries in deals would/should have 0 effect on who you draft in an entry draft meaning that changing this rule in the middle of that really changes nothing (yet you seem to think it does). 

All we are voting for is this: I want to trade Tomas Fleischmann. Currently, whoever I trade him to has to take the entire 4.5 million in cap. If we change the rule to 1 year deals allowing salary retention then I can hold up to 2.25 million in cap in any trade I make and whoever gets Tomas Fleischmann will hold the other 2.25 million. 

That is all this is asking, so I don't get how it changes what you have mentioned it will change. 

[Toronto Maple Leafs]

I very well am not understanding the rule...I will look at it again in the morning...sorry for being such a pain in the ass boys LOL Gnite all.

[Deleted]

To side with Toronto a bit, I usually see rule changes go into effect the season after they're approved. In this case, it could be putting teams who got an earlier start this offseason at a disadvantage, especially rebuilding teams who already unloaded bigger contracts and could have used this as a trade chip.

I voted 'no' because salary retention can worsen parity. Rebuilding teams can retain a bunch of salary to fall well under the cap floor and contending teams will get a lot more top heavy with half price contracts. Personally, I think leagues are more fun when every team tries to compete every year and tanking is minimized. Having said that, it won't be too bad with the one year limit.

[Columbus Blue Jackets]

Jun 30, 2015 0:38:55 GMT -5 @pimmer said:

To side with Toronto a bit, I usually see rule changes go into effect the season after they're approved. In this case, it could be putting teams who got an earlier start this offseason at a disadvantage, especially rebuilding teams who already unloaded bigger contracts and could have used this as a trade chip.

I voted 'no' because salary retention can worsen parity. Rebuilding teams can retain a bunch of salary to fall well under the cap floor and contending teams will get a lot more top heavy with half price contracts. Personally, I think leagues are more fun when every team tries to compete every year and tanking is minimized. Having said that, it won't be too bad with the one year limit.

No. As one of the teams with the lowest caps in the league and after I just dumped Kesler, I have no regret about doing that deal and getting what I did without retaining any salary - it furthered my team. It's not a disadvantage, it's changing the dynamic for the better and I fully support it. If a team falls below the cap floor, I expect consequences to be handed out via the Comissioner's - suspensions, cap penalties for future/rest of season etc. I have some work to do and have reached out to many teams about cap dumps to help both them and I.

That argument about worsening parity is irrelevant imo. We're talking about 1 YEAR DEALS ONLY. If the team trying for the cup needs his trade partner to retain salary, what makes you think that top team, barring any crazy Free Agency drops, will be able to resign that player to his full contract cap hit for the next year unless it's something like Christian Ehrhoff? Tanking is inevitable, you can't stop someone who makes legitimate trades to make their team shit from tanking as long as they are within the cap floor and maximum.

[Deleted]

I'm not saying you should regret the deals you made in anyway, but if you could have gotten an extra 2nd to eat half of Kesler's salary, would you have done it? Maybe, maybe not... but teams in similar situations who are getting a later start this Summer now have that option when making similar deals. Similarly, cup contending teams who already spent picks and prospects to acquire high-salary players for next season will be at a disadvantage to new buyers. It even has an effect on which free agents teams chose to re-sign, since the ability to eat salary would make certain players more valuable and tradable (Zubrus or Jokinen for instance). All I'm saying is I can understand why timing in an issue for the Leafs. I tend to agree that there should be a buffer period before rule changes go into effect so that everyone's on equal footing and knows what to expect.

In regard to parity, my concern is teams using dead cap space to hit the floor. As in, keeping a team full of prospect, entry level deals and fourth liners, then reaching the cap floor by trading away overpriced players and keeping half the salary. There are ways of making it happen with the one year limit, too.

Ex: Calgary needs to free up cap space, so they trade Fleischmann to a cap floor team (let's call them the Hartford Whalers) for below market value. Hartford then trades Fleischmann at 50% salary to Arizona for a profit. Having previously been at the cap floor, Hartford is now above it by ~$2M and can sell another one of their higher salary players.

It helps rebuilding teams get more assets and contending teams load up their roster, but it could hurt parity season-to-season. It's just my opinion, but while tanking is inevitable, leagues aren't as fun when a bunch of teams try to do it. If parity worsens and mid-range contenders become less competitively viable, then you could see 10 teams vying for last place, which would kind of suck.

Again, it's not THAT big of a deal, and it looks like I'm outnumbered anyway hahaha! Just thought I'd give my 2 cents.

[Dallas Stars]

Jun 30, 2015 17:04:07 GMT -5 @pimmer said:

I'm not saying you should regret the deals you made in anyway, but if you could have gotten an extra 2nd to eat half of Kesler's salary, would you have done it? Maybe, maybe not... but teams in similar situations who are getting a later start this Summer now have that option when making similar deals. Similarly, cup contending teams who already spent picks and prospects to acquire high-salary players for next season will be at a disadvantage to new buyers. It even has an effect on which free agents teams chose to re-sign, since the ability to eat salary would make certain players more valuable and tradable (Zubrus or Jokinen for instance). All I'm saying is I can understand why timing in an issue for the Leafs. I tend to agree that there should be a buffer period before rule changes go into effect so that everyone's on equal footing and knows what to expect.

In regard to parity, my concern is teams using dead cap space to hit the floor. As in, keeping a team full of prospect, entry level deals and fourth liners, then reaching the cap floor by trading away overpriced players and keeping half the salary. There are ways of making it happen with the one year limit, too.

Ex: Calgary needs to free up cap space, so they trade Fleischmann to a cap floor team (let's call them the Hartford Whalers) for below market value. Hartford then trades Fleischmann at 50% salary to Arizona for a profit. Having previously been at the cap floor, Hartford is now above it by ~$2M and can sell another one of their higher salary players.

It helps rebuilding teams get more assets and contending teams load up their roster, but it could hurt parity season-to-season. It's just my opinion, but while tanking is inevitable, leagues aren't as fun when a bunch of teams try to do it. If parity worsens and mid-range contenders become less competitively viable, then you could see 10 teams vying for last place, which would kind of suck.

Again, it's not THAT big of a deal, and it looks like I'm outnumbered anyway hahaha! Just thought I'd give my 2 cents.

Definitely understand where you're coming from here. We discussed it and think that putting in a hard cap of $10M salary retention would at least limit the amount a team can retain and that a team can dismiss. We were also thinking of putting a limit of 3 total players a team can retain/dismiss salary.

What do you guys think?

[Deleted]

That could be good. Also, one other thing to consider is banning tradebacks so a teams can't outright trade cap space for a season.

[Dallas Stars]

Jun 30, 2015 17:38:57 GMT -5 @pimmer said:

That could be good. Also, one other thing to consider is banning tradebacks so a teams can't outright trade cap space for a season.

Yeah that's definitely not allowed. Only salary retention, not straight out cap.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Just to clarify Kyle, a team can only retain a total of $10 million, correct? Is that what you meant?

[Dallas Stars]

Jun 30, 2015 19:02:46 GMT -5 Montreal Canadiens said:

Just to clarify Kyle, a team can only retain a total of $10 million, correct? Is that what you meant?

Yes sir.

[Florida Panthers]

Jun 30, 2015 19:02:46 GMT -5 Montreal Canadiens said:

Just to clarify Kyle, a team can only retain a total of $10 million, correct? Is that what you meant?

It would be 10 million or up to 3 players whichever comes first