Philippe27 wrote:

---

Maybe 50% is too much, maybe it's not. Only Bryce and Eric have experience with this system and they know what they're doing. We need to try it and after a season there may be valid arguments but at this point I don't think anyone can claim and prove that 20-30% is better than 50% there's no way to know so we have to stick with what was decided before the season started. We were all aware of that when we drafted, back then was the time to argue, not now after we have all built our teams a certain way.

---

WHy not, i can prove that 100% is worse than 50%...Also, I have you know that I am fully behind Bryce and Eric..Don't undermine that fact... You act like because i see a problem in the league that somehow I am not supporting them.

HOwever, they are human and they aren't infallible. If they review this in the summer and say that 50% is the final word. I wont agree, but i will accept it because I respect what they've done for the league and what they think.

 

Philippe27 wrote:

---

I just don't understand why all people want to do is change rules now. Why wasn't this brought up in the off-season before we drafted? Changing anything now is extremely unfair and it's by changing stuff like that that we lose GM's and that a league turns into a joke.
Hopefully in the off-season we can take a couple of weeks to review the rules and change them for the next off-season and that what is decided at that point will be basically final because all these discussions are really annoying and frustrating.

-- Edited by Philippe27 at 23:37, 2007-02-19

---

There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking at rules as the league goes on and adjusting them as need be. Regardless of how much things are looked at, at any particular point in time, every eventuality simply cannot be predicted. Things will happen that will make people say "hey, we need a rule about this" or "we need to adjust or change a rule because it's just not working, or it can be better". I think that should be pretty clear from the Philly/Atlanta trade that just happened. Nobody's disputing that it's not "in the rules", but the vast vast majority of people that have responded sure seem to think it's not right. Changing things that need changing doesn't turn the league into a joke, it makes things better.

With regards to the cap in particular, I won't speak for anybody but myself. When I joined up, sure I looked at the rules, but it's not as if I went over them with a fine tooth comb. When I joined a league that follows the NHL for pretty much everything, and I read "The salary cap will run in correlation of the NHL salary cap." I assumed that the salary cap would indeed run in correlation with the NHL salary cap, including how it's implemented. Yes, I did read "The salary cap is defined as the pro payroll." But either didn't give it much thought given the previous statement, or simply didn't think about it at all. I'll certainly take my own responsibility for not asking the question at the time, but that doesn't mean I won't bring something up just because of that...

-- Edited by Florida Panthers at 00:40, 2007-02-20

Philippe27 wrote:

---

I understand your point of view but I read the rules carefully and builtmy team accordingly.
I also agree that if we see a rule isn,t working properly we can change it BUT we haven't even gone through ONE off-season yet so I don't get how someone can claim now that something is better and not have known it in the off-season when we all drafted.
After this off-season sure we can look at it and maybe change something for the next off-season if we see it's clearly not working but GM's who read the rules and built their team accordingly should in no way be penalized.

---

Even if you want to argue that, I'd argue that the rule stating the cap runs in correlation to the NHL cap should over-ride anything else, and therefore SBs should count towards the cap just like the NHL.  I sure didn't factor in cash on the understanding that SBs count just like the NHL.  You assumed they didn't, I assumed they did.  As far as I see, we both have valid reasons for assuming what we did.  You're no more being "penalized" than I am. 

For something like the SBs and the cap, you don't need to wait a season... it's pretty clear what the ramifcations will be and how things are going to look.

Seems like everything is quite obvious from your interpretation. However, Florida and I both interpret that the same way. I think you just interpret things based on what is advantageous to your team and the way you first read it and thought it was.

According to what? your INTERPRETATION

What if other people drafted and traded according to how they interpreted ""The salary cap will run in correlation of the NHL salary cap." Or the fact that it doesnt say that the signing bonus has no correlation to the Cap.

Philippe27 wrote:

---

Sabres wrote:

---

Seems like everything is quite obvious from your interpretation. However, Florida and I both interpret that the same way. I think you just interpret things based on what is advantageous to your team and the way you first read it and thought it was.

---

 How about maybe because I drafted and traded according to this is why it seems that it advantages my team?

 

---

 

This is the most retarded excuse for making a stand on rules Ive ever seen. You see rules changed in the NHL WITHOUT NOTICE from year to year. The same will happen here. Its still a level playing field either way. If their are flaws in the rules then they will be adjusted to further create a level playing field. Stop trying to protect your loophole, its inevitably going to be changed.