Cap Circumvention Debate

[slufoot]

IMO the loophole effectively negates the spirit of a cap-league. The rule SHOULD be changed, but if its a 6-4 vote to not change it and 3 abstain from the vote not much can be done.

asv27, sounds like you should find a new league if the loophole is a cause for great concern for you.

golfguy, sounds like your interpretation of the 'rules' is extremely sef-serving. Your competition is right in that it is a loophole, not a rule, and likely one that contributes to the high turnover rate of GMs in your league. You are essentially in favour of operating a team in a cap-league, without abiding by the cap. In the real NHL, teams like the NYR, TML can afford to stash bad contracts in the minors - its within the rules but doesn't make it right - or fair.

letnry, good on you in your handling of the situation.

[golfguy1672]

IMO the loophole effectively negates the spirit of a cap-league. The rule SHOULD be changed, but if its a 6-4 vote to not change it and 3 abstain from the vote not much can be done.

asv27, sounds like you should find a new league if the loophole is a cause for great concern for you.

golfguy, sounds like your interpretation of the 'rules' is extremely sef-serving. Your competition is right in that it is a loophole, not a rule, and likely one that contributes to the high turnover rate of GMs in your league. You are essentially in favour of operating a team in a cap-league, without abiding by the cap. In the real NHL, teams like the NYR, TML can afford to stash bad contracts in the minors - its within the rules but doesn't make it right - or fair.

letnry, good on you in your handling of the situation.

Ok maybe it is a loophole. But why is it that this particular league has a high turnover rate, but my 3 money leagues, with identical rules, have had no turnover and boasts 12, 14, 14 managers in all 3 that love the rules and find them challenging and fair?

Again, I will admit, If I were not in any other leagues that had these rules in effect, I could see why they would irritate me too.

Its a part of the reason why I generally dont play limited keepers. I just dont like losing any of my roster that I spend time and my hardwork drafting. I feel that this is what is happening in this league. Even if it is only 1-3 players from my roster. I dont think its right to lose them potentially without compensation. Even if that compensation is as little as a 6th round draft pick.

But thats ok. If it happens, I will roll with the punches and adapt. If I still agree with any rule changes I will stay and play. But I have never had any issue with leaving a league due to rule changes that I deem unfair and not for the good of the league. Ask Shoeless and Chicleteur. I left a league that involved them due to my feeling that the Comish and Co-Commish didnt properly convey the feelings of the league. They made rule changes mid season and without voting on it. I will only be involved in a league that is run as a "Cheer-ocracy" and not a "Cheer-tatorship".

Letnry is a great Comish. In fact, he was just a MOD when the league started. The actual Comish went AWOL in the first season and he took over. Letnry's dedication to the league is outstanding. Sadly, its all for not half the time.

[asv27]

IMO the loophole effectively negates the spirit of a cap-league. The rule SHOULD be changed, but if its a 6-4 vote to not change it and 3 abstain from the vote not much can be done.

asv27, sounds like you should find a new league if the loophole is a cause for great concern for you.

golfguy, sounds like your interpretation of the 'rules' is extremely sef-serving. Your competition is right in that it is a loophole, not a rule, and likely one that contributes to the high turnover rate of GMs in your league. You are essentially in favour of operating a team in a cap-league, without abiding by the cap. In the real NHL, teams like the NYR, TML can afford to stash bad contracts in the minors - its within the rules but doesn't make it right - or fair.

letnry, good on you in your handling of the situation.

Good response.

As to the bolded, NHL teams can stash their players in the minors only after the pass through waivers, which is exactly what I'm proposing here.

And you're right about golfguy. He's made many self-serving, strawman "arguments" on the subject, which isn't helping the discussion.

[letnry]

I would recommend one thing here: as the commissioner, I think it would be appropriate for you to counsel any new teams joining your league, very specifically on that loophole before they make the final decision. Clearly new teams joining are at an abnormal disadvantage as compared to joining other leagues of similar structure but that require players to pass through waivers to the farm team in the off season. I think that would be playing fair with folks that are thinking about joining your league. They are probably out there but I haven't seen or experienced a league which allowed me to drop 10M worth of salary in one player to the farm over the off-season without the guy being subjected to waivers and then being able to maintain the guy the whole of the next season if I so desire. Generally I think you will find most people expect a cap league to not allow that kind of avoidance mechanism, so when they finally bump up against the blunt reality of the hole they are in, it is hardly surprising that some might get vocal about it. Nip it in the bud.

That's a good point, thanks. As I have evolved as a commissioner I have began to make a strong effort to explain as much about the dynamics of the league and interesting aspects of the league to all potential new GMs to help them make their decision. This is something that could easily be added to that narrative. I also have a spiel I give them after they have joined.

[Shoeless]

Good response.

As to the bolded, NHL teams can stash their players in the minors only after the pass through waivers, which is exactly what I'm proposing here.

And you're right about golfguy. He's made many self-serving, strawman "arguments" on the subject, which isn't helping the discussion.

And your arguments aren't self-serving? You were doing okay up until now - so don't be disrespectful or we will whistle and call the dogs in to piss on you.

[TheRook]

They made rule changes mid season and without voting on it. I will only be involved in a league that is run as a "Cheer-ocracy" and not a "Cheer-tatorship".

huh?

[golfguy1672]

It's from the movie Just Bring It haha. The cheerleading movie haha. Just means I want to be in a democracy league not a dictatorship league.

[leaftodd]

It's from the movie Just Bring It haha. The cheerleading movie haha. Just means I want to be in a democracy league not a dictatorship league.

I think we could get into a great debate on the way leagues are run.

To run a true democracy opens the league up to making decisions based on personal agenda's. Of course a dictatorship would allow this as well but i'm of the opinion that if you have the right dictator i'd rather be in a pool that was run that way then by a vote on everything.

[golfguy1672]

I think we could get into a great debate on the way leagues are run.

To run a true democracy opens the league up to making decisions based on personal agenda's. Of course a dictatorship would allow this as well but i'm of the opinion that if you have the right dictator i'd rather be in a pool that was run that way then by a vote on everything.

I can agree to that to an extent. I just think when a major issue needs to get changed, the entire league should vote on it. If people start nit picking every little thing they dislike with a league and try and get everything exactly the way they want then the voting issue is a nuisance. Kind of what's happening in this league. There 4 polls ongoing in it, 3 of which were proposed by asv27

[TheRook]

It's from the movie Just Bring It haha. The cheerleading movie haha. Just means I want to be in a democracy league not a dictatorship league.

You Sir are in violation of Man Code for quoting a chick flick. Your Man Card is hereby revoked.

[golfguy1672]

You Sir are in violation of Man Code for quoting a chick flick. Your Man Card is hereby revoked.

Negative ghost rider. The pattern is full.

[asv27]

And your arguments aren't self-serving? You were doing okay up until now - so don't be disrespectful or we will whistle and call the dogs in to piss on you.

In this instance it does help my team a bit, but that's not the reason I want the loophole closed. IMO it's clear cap circumvention, which should not be allowed.

It also makes the league way too easy IMO. as it stands no GMs don't have to make any tough decisions because they can keep everyone they have. In stead of making moves to shed salary or not signing that guy you can't afford next year, they just hold on to their whole team and have a nice 5M injury replacement waiting for them in the minors.

As I said before, I commish two leagues that has this rule and have had to waive ppl at the start of each year, and even lost a few to claims. If I was trying to serve myself don't you think I wouldn't have this rule in the leagues where I am very strong?

[asv27]

I can agree to that to an extent. I just think when a major issue needs to get changed, the entire league should vote on it. If people start nit picking every little thing they dislike with a league and try and get everything exactly the way they want then the voting issue is a nuisance. Kind of what's happening in this league. There 4 polls ongoing in it, 3 of which were proposed by asv27

Actually I have posted no polls, the commish has posted them all. And there only two polls up currently, which stemmed from point's have brought up, this one and one about adding a defensive stat (hits and/or blocks), which both would improve the league.

You're making things up to try to make yourself look better.

[TheRook]

That's a good point, thanks. As I have evolved as a commissioner I have began to make a strong effort to explain as much about the dynamics of the league and interesting aspects of the league to all potential new GMs to help them make their decision. This is something that could easily be added to that narrative. I also have a spiel I give them after they have joined.

Can i make a suggestion if you already dont do it?

Peform an exit interview for those managers that decide to leave. Sounds like the high turnover is cause for concern. This thread makes us assume one of the reasons is the issue being discussed but that could be accurate or far from the truth. I am sure managers would be willing to participate in an exit interview if approached properly. Maybe its as simple as asking them to send a summary email of their thoughts of the league and why they are leaving.

There is usually a reason why someone leaves a league and if you can identify a trend that may be invaluable to the direction you want to take the league. This may allow you to identify changes that need to be made without looking for majority vote for the betterment of the league.

If you are already doing this thats great to hear. What kind of trends have you noticed?

[asv27]

That's a good suggestion, but the problem is that most GMs are replace because of inactivity as opposed to GMs saying they're leaving. So there really won't be an exit interview.

However, the reason most GMs become inactive is because they aren't competitive and lose interest. A more balanced league will make more teams competitive, which will increase activity (in theory).