Cap Circumvention Debate

[asv27]

Hey Guys, in my 3rd league we're having a debate on whether or not the lack of a pre-season waiver period is cap circumvention.

Our league has a 85M cap and a rule stating that any player making over 1.5M has to pass waivers to be sent to the farm. However, this rule doesn't apply until the season starts so GMs end up stashing a few guys over 1.5M on their farm before the season begins incase of injury or slump/breakout. There ends up being about 15 to 20 NHL players over 1.5M that start the year in the minors w/o having to pass waivers each season.

My question to you guys is, do you consider this loophole cap circumvention and a pre-season waiver date be set (like the NHL does it) where all players over 1.5M have to go through waivers to start the season on the farm, or do you not see a problem wiht the current set-up.

[TK12555]

just so I have this right, you do not have to pass waivers when they come up to the main team?

I don't think it's against the rules, but it's very "cheap". I don't like it really. A rule should be changed to avoid that in the future. Maybe they have to pass waivers year round?

[TheRook]

put a games played restriction on the farm and it will be much harder for teams to use the farm as a stashing place. Otherwise the farm isn't a farm, but an extention of the bench.

[asv27]

just so I have this right, you do not have to pass waivers when they come up to the main team?

I don't think it's against the rules, but it's very "cheap". I don't like it really. A rule should be changed to avoid that in the future. Maybe they have to pass waivers year round?

The rule is they don't have to pass waivers before the season starts so when we have to submit our pre-season rosters GMs just stash they guys they can't afford under the cap on the farm before waivers start. Also, there are no re-entry waivers so if a player gets injured that GM can call up their 5M minor league to replace the injured guy.

[asv27]

put a games played restriction on the farm and it will be much harder for teams to use the farm as a stashing place. Otherwise the farm isn't a farm, but an extention of the bench.

If GMs are balking at a waiver period, they'll never agree to put a game limit on the farm.

[Shoeless]

It's the same for everyone - what's the issue?

[Domi's Homey]

Is it cap circumvention?
Yes.
The way you describe the situation is that GMs are using (or abusing?) the system to keep players who are too expensive. That's pretty much the definition of cap circumvention.
The real issue, it sounds, is whether or not your league as whole desires to keep this somewhat flawed system in place or not. That should be decided by league vote, in my opinion.

[asv27]

It's the same for everyone - what's the issue?

Because only about half the teams do it, the other half (mostly the new dispersal teams) don't have that many players, and could use them. So the teams that have a bunch of high priced guys trade them to the weaker teams for picks/prospects.

[Shoeless]

So you have several teams that don't want to change the rules because it doesn't serve them well and then several teams that do want to change the rules because they are getting snuffed by the way things are set up?

So what's the mechanism for getting rules changed in your league?

[asv27]

So you have several teams that don't want to change the rules because it doesn't serve them well and then several teams that do want to change the rules because they are getting snuffed by the way things are set up?

So what's the mechanism for getting rules changed in your league?

Pretty much. We put it to a vote, but not everyone's voted and the guys in charge (who have a few guys set to start in the minors) are hesitant to change the rule, which is why I want to get some neutral opinions.

[ericdaoust]

This isn't cap circumvention, IMO it's a weak rule in the first place. The rules left you guys wide open for this exact situation to happen.

[Shoeless]

Semantics ED - effectively the loophole (unintentional as it might be) is effectively allowing teams to maintain a roster that far exceeds the cap as it was originally intended to be.

I think this is bad for the league generally because in time the dispursement teams (?) will get tired of playing the game and quit. The league is operating outside the spirit of the rules as they were established. The rich get richer ....

If I was a holder of a dispursement team in that league and the vote goes against changing the rule, I would vote with my feet - I would quit and find a league that I had a chance to compete in. Life is far too short and there are lots of leagues looking for good GMs.

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

Pretty much. We put it to a vote, but not everyone's voted and the guys in charge (who have a few guys set to start in the minors) are hesitant to change the rule, which is why I want to get some neutral opinions.

So the commissioners are some of the people taking advantage of the loophole, and don't want to change the rule because it's allowing them to consistently compete and rip off the new people....

Tbh if the rules in the league aren't changed, I'd quit. There's no reason to waste your time in a league that half the teams have no chance to compete. And when it's the teams in charge bending the rules like that, it's not going to change.

[asv27]

Not all the mods do it, but a few do.

The biggest issue teams have is they feel they're being punished for having a good team, which is the whole point of having a cap IMO.

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

The biggest issue teams have is they feel they're being punished for having a good team, which is the whole point of having a cap IMO.

Haha, exactly. If they want to continue what they're doing, it's fine. But then they need to raise the cap and get rid of a few teams. The only way a large league can work is with a cap that people actually stick to. Otherwise they're better off playing in a smaller league.

Or just play on yahoo without a cap at all.