Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 16:30:18 GMT -5
Any calculation would only apply to the contract amount that actually moves to the new team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay Seo on Mar 26, 2014 16:58:40 GMT -5
Any calculation would only apply to the contract amount that actually moves to the new team. One question I have for the staff is: Is rule #2 feasible to implement and for the staff to manage? Having owned the simulator, it doesn't have an option to set individual team caps if I recall correctly. While I like the rule and what it's trying to accomplish, it seems like it would be a whole lot of work for the commissioner to keep track of for very little gain, especially since the expiring contract amounts for teams can change rapidly if there's a lot of trades made during those two weeks. The rule also risks penalizing contenders who have managed their cap well, but happen to not have any major expiring contracts that season (unless this is intentional). If the goal of the rule is to prevent teams from utilizing the increase to re-sign free agents that they wouldn't have been able to re-sign otherwise, the simpler option would just be to freeze negotiations with trade deadline acquisitions until after the season ends, since very, very few pending UFAs re-sign with a new team during the season and/or playoffs. I won't lobby the staff for further changes, but to me, it seems like the additional rule could introduce more headaches than it's worth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 17:19:08 GMT -5
well either way, point still stands.....a team should not be able to benefit from that 50% cap hit that is being held by another team
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 26, 2014 19:14:54 GMT -5
Question about point two. Say I currently have only one million in expiring contracts on my team. Am I able to trade for a player who has only one year left on their contract that would put me more then one million over the current salary cap ceiling of 64.3? I could see the answer being yes or no based on the current wording. Wording seems to make it sound like a no, but due to the reasoning of the rule I see no reason that it should not be a yes as the expiring contracts will keep a team below the salary ceiling when they expire. Other then this, I don't have anything else to add other then great decision, this can only help the league over time. The idea behind the rule is to ensure that nobody has cap commitments greater the salary cap past the end of the regular season. So even if you have no expiring contracts, therefore no additional cap space, you can add a player on an expiring contract as there is no additional commitment beyond this year. |
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 26, 2014 19:19:37 GMT -5
so question on this......would Kovalchuk be treated as an expiring contract? The Kovalchuk situation is a little dicey. If we get a written confirmation that the GM intends to use an inactivity buyout on him, thereby erasing the remaining years on his deal, then we could consider him to be an "expiring contract". |
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 26, 2014 19:22:38 GMT -5
Any calculation would only apply to the contract amount that actually moves to the new team. One question I have for the staff is: Is rule #2 feasible to implement and for the staff to manage? Having owned the simulator, it doesn't have an option to set individual team caps if I recall correctly. While I like the rule and what it's trying to accomplish, it seems like it would be a whole lot of work for the commissioner to keep track of for very little gain, especially since the expiring contract amounts for teams can change rapidly if there's a lot of trades made during those two weeks. The rule also risks penalizing contenders who have managed their cap well, but happen to not have any major expiring contracts that season (unless this is intentional). If the goal of the rule is to prevent teams from utilizing the increase to re-sign free agents that they wouldn't have been able to re-sign otherwise, the simpler option would just be to freeze negotiations with trade deadline acquisitions until after the season ends, since very, very few pending UFAs re-sign with a new team during the season and/or playoffs. I won't lobby the staff for further changes, but to me, it seems like the additional rule could introduce more headaches than it's worth. This is not necessarily something that we have discussed, but it is easily remedied. One possible solution would to insist that any GM using the extra cap space must indicate in the trade that they send to a staff member how much "expiring contract" space they have at the time of the deal. We will have a system worked out to ensure that there are no abuses of the system. |
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Mar 26, 2014 19:30:20 GMT -5
well either way, point still stands.....a team should not be able to benefit from that 50% cap hit that is being held by another team We will continue to have this as an option. The extra cap space gained from salary retention is an asset like any other, and appropriate compensation is usually given to the team holding back salary in return as a part of the trade. If the value for a player is agreed to by both GMs to be a 3rd round pick, one GM can agree to pay a 2nd round pick instead in exchange for the other to hold salary. The increase in the cap will put less pressure on GMs to part with assets in return for salary rentention, as they will have more room to play with, but we will keep it as an option. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Mar 26, 2014 20:10:45 GMT -5
Great news! I have lots of useful pending UFA's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 20:44:55 GMT -5
Great news! I have lots of useful pending UFA's you and me both  |
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Sabres on Mar 26, 2014 22:28:23 GMT -5
Andre and brad did an awesome job answering questions. Basically we won't process any trades within that two weeks putting teams over unless we can clearly see enough expiring contracts to do so. Really its only eXtra work for two weeks.
Exciting idea and thanks again to Boston for putting together such a strong proposal. Made the staff job much easier to finalize.
|
|
