The "It's time to get a CBA done" Thread - Input Required!!

[kimmer]

Alright new topic for discussion.

Making official penalties for being over/under the salary cap. What do you say?

Punishment for said infraction already is a warning as part of our 3 warning system before a boot

[Fraser]

Alright fair enough. I suppose I was bringing it up to see if the dominant perspective remained that was a significant enough of a penalty.

[CAM]

I see my point was added to OP. Id like to point out mid week injury replacements ONLY during playoffs. Not reg season.

[Fraser]

I see my point was added to OP. Id like to point out mid week injury replacements ONLY during playoffs. Not reg season.

I could potentially get on board with this. But I am very opposed to it being implemented in the regular season. Not overly thrilled with the idea for the playoffs either personally, but I get why some would want to see it.

[Matthew]

I see my point was added to OP. Id like to point out mid week injury replacements ONLY during playoffs. Not reg season.

I could potentially get on board with this. But I am very opposed to it being implemented in the regular season. Not overly thrilled with the idea for the playoffs either personally, but I get why some would want to see it.

I agree. The issue with it being implemented during the regular season is that it will punish guys who only want to be present to set their rosters once a week. And if that is the case, you may end up losing those guys as GMs.

During the playoffs most guys will be checking in more, so I wouldnt mind it. Although, it punishes teams with only 18 active skaters, and of course I believe Steve brought it up once about if you are down in a category, you could have a periph guy injured, realize you are losing in goals, and replace him with a scoring guy, which could cause a significant advantage.

[Fraser]

The way I see it at least is you have to factor in everything when setting your lineups for the week, and building your overall roster. Injury proneness is a part of this, and while unforeseen incidents do occur that is part of the game for me. It would up the value of injury prone players to deep teams, knowing if they go down they can be replaced.

[CAM]

There are extreme case scenarios during playoffs that can and will happen. I understand the value of building and having depth on a team. Imagine you make it to the playoffs and on Monday night you lose your starting goaltender, 2 centers and 2 dmen to injury. Meanwhile you have players capable of filling in but too bad for you, you lose because you cannot fix your roster. I know its a gamble but i think most would agree that it would be an awful shitty way to go down. I am not advocating unlimited replacements, more of an emergency callup or limited number of callups per team per week during playoffs. Or even say cutoff from replacements after Wednesday. Details can be worked out but i would just like to have a discussion on the pros and cons. If we are trying to mimic the NHL, would an NHL team that sustained multiple injuries to skaters and a goalie dress the next game in the series with no goalie? In the playoffs it should be may the best team win, not may the team that is the luckiest and good win. If you were on the otherside and your opponent lost his 2 goalies, would you feel like you won fair and square after the fact knowing he could have fixed the problems if permitted? Just asking for discussion on the matter....

[Matthew]

^this could cause even more goalie hoarding. I know if I were going into the playoffs this season, and we could replace goalies, I would NOT have even considered moving Mike Smith, despite having 2 starters. I was considering this deadline, despite being a possibility for the playoffs. You could get a lot of the best teams claiming 2 starters on their teams in case of playoff injuries.

[Fraser]

I could be in support of bench players being injury replacements, but not minor call ups. I actually like that possibility and hadn't thought of that yet.

[kyuss]

My input:

Please explore the possibility of having a set number of midweek emergency injury callups during playoffs.

As said in the past, now that on Fantrax this is doable, it should only be a matter of how exactly rather than if

[kyuss]

I see my point was added to OP. Id like to point out mid week injury replacements ONLY during playoffs. Not reg season.

I could potentially get on board with this. But I am very opposed to it being implemented in the regular season. Not overly thrilled with the idea for the playoffs either personally, but I get why some would want to see it.

I agree. The issue with it being implemented during the regular season is that it will punish guys who only want to be present to set their rosters once a week. And if that is the case, you may end up losing those guys as GMs.

yeah, but I don't think anyone ever pushed for having that in our RS.

During the playoffs most guys will be checking in more, so I wouldnt mind it. Although, it punishes teams with only 18 active skaters, and of course I believe Steve brought it up once about if you are down in a category, you could have a periph guy injured, realize you are losing in goals, and replace him with a scoring guy, which could cause a significant advantage.

no, that obviously should not be allowed. This falls into the 'how' we would need to implement it.
So for this matter for example, GMs would probably need to name their replacements for each position before the start of their matchup.

[kyuss]

I could be in support of bench players being injury replacements, but not minor call ups. I actually like that possibility and hadn't thought of that yet.

keep in mind, our limited benches should not even apply to the playoffs from a "pro realism" standpoint. NHL teams don't have the same limits anymore after the RS is over. Heck, I don't think the salary cap even applies anymore during NHL playoffs.

[Fraser]

Which brings up another good talking point "should we have a salary cap during the playoffs".

Personally I like the bench to injury replacement idea as it caps us at 3. And still requires some foresight and decision making on the GM's end of things when he sets his lines. Do I put the extra goaltender on the bench? Do I put the scoring guy, or the periph guy? Extra Dman or not? With 3 potential injury replacements it gives you options but still puts limitations on making decisions at the time with full knowledge of your situation. So it allows injury replacement, and you can put your top extras on the bench, but at least waters down some of the advantage held by incredibly deep rosters in the playoffs.

Also for the salary cap in the playoffs, I would say the 20 man roster would have to be compliant. But allow the bench players to exceed the cap. Sort of lines up well with bench injury replacements idea too.

[Matthew]

^could this mean you could put an 8 million guy on your bench, and hope an 800k guy gets injured, and then insert said guy, or do you mean that an 8 million guy would need to get injured to insert him in? Assuming team is at cap.

[Fraser]

^could this mean you could put an 8 million guy on your bench, and hope an 800k guy gets injured, and then insert said guy, or do you mean that an 8 million guy would need to get injured to insert him in? Assuming team is at cap.

I suppose that is what I'm saying, as I would propose that mid-week emergency injury replacements don't hurt someone cap-wise. But I don't think that scenario is realistic as there isn't a team in this league with the depth to be sitting an 8 million dollar player on the bench.

Most potential cap disparity you would see under that proposed format, would be waiver ineligible guys with higher salaries getting sat on the bench ready for an emergency replacement for anyone who went down. If someone who went down had a low cap hit, then yea the emergency replacement might put them over. But they would have to be cap compliant for the start of the next round again.

[Matthew]

Meh. I could get on board with bench call ups, but I would prefer everything be cap compliant.

[Fraser]

I probably agree with you from a personal sense. But thinking broadly If we are doing injury replacements, there are lots of guys who can't afford to have guys sitting on their bench and be cap compliant. I suppose it would be added incentive to have cap friendly team, but i don't see many getting on board with the bench replacement idea if that was the case.

[Matthew]

We have to have our bench cap compliant all season. Would it be that different?

Edit: nvm, you are saying if someone's 18 players are at the cap. But I see that as the teams fault for not spreading cap, as all NHL teams carry bench players under cap.

[kimmer]

We have to have our bench cap compliant all season. Would it be that different?

Correct. Ud have bench + active equalling up to ur cap ceiling otherwise it's illegal roster to begin with

[kyuss]

Why nhl teams can have different rules for playoffs and ours can't?

Also, I think GMs without depth should worry about creating depth for their teams rather than preventing other teams from using theirs. There would be nothing unfair about being able to use depth in case of injuries. Dressed players would still be in the same number so...