Salary calculations

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
This is a very good idea as well and it sure would simplify things but I think this might open up the waiver system to more abuse. Teams who have guaranteed playoff spots might start putting big salaries in the minors to save cash with no waiver consequences and then recall such players right before playoffs. Maybe we're just better off changing the rule so that it's the onus of the GM to stay below the cap after waivers, not the League, when they make waiver claims.

Not only that, but I feel it would almost seem like a punishment to teams which have done well to save space under the cap. Why should teams whom have the room to add players via the waiver wire be restricted from doing so just because others want to exploit the system?

As long teams waiving the players are staying above the cap floor and the min OV, and teams claiming players are staying below the cap, I don't see any reason to put a restriction on player movement around the league.
 

Ohio Jones

Game on...
Feb 28, 2002
8,257
201
Great White North
Pronger was initially not given any penalty. It was only after review of a different camera angle that the league suspended him.

The fact that the waiver was not caught at the time does not make it acceptable. I agree the player must go to the next team to have submitted a waiver claim, that is not in cap conflict. If no other team submitted a claim, the player goes to the minors of their original team.

In terms of applying an additional penalty to the teams involved, I'm not sure that's strictly necessary as long as the players are sent to their proper destinations. If there is a penalty applied, it should be consistent with the penalty for going over the cap by X amount (in Ville's case, according to his figures, it would be a 4th round pick).
 

Dr.Sens(e)

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
7,014
1
Ottawa
Visit site
Sorry guys, I'm not the "cap guy" nor the deciding vote on the admin team for this, but I might as well chime in.

First off, I'm not even sure what happened. I've read through the posts, but am still a little confused by some of what is being discussed regarding waiver and cap (which have nothing to do with one another). Is it a case of a team making a waiver claim for a player after the third . If so, i'm not sure this is covered in the rules in which case it's tough to apply the penalty. If there is precedent for a penalty (if it's the exact same as what happened to Dryden), then there should be a penalty. In the end, teams are encouraged to ASK and clarify, rather than just do and apologize.

And while I don't agree with teams exploting loop holes in general, on the other hand we set our rules according to the check points, so it's not surprising teams adjust their cap strategy based on this (it's only natural). I know I made a trade after the second check point that kept me under the cap based on averaging the three checkpoints, but at the same time, my team's salary was higher on average simply because I made the deal right after the second check point and basically got the player (Souray) for the second half of the season, with only having his salary count towards a third of it (the last calculation). not to be a pain, but maybe someone can summarize this in an objective way so we can have a decision made.
 

Dryden

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,920
14
Toronto
I was just over the cap at the end of the year despite having a salary below the cap. It wasn't a waiver claim that put me over the cap. Just wanted to clarify that.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
Sorry guys, I'm not the "cap guy" nor the deciding vote on the admin team for this, but I might as well chime in.

First off, I'm not even sure what happened. I've read through the posts, but am still a little confused by some of what is being discussed regarding waiver and cap (which have nothing to do with one another). Is it a case of a team making a waiver claim for a player after the third . If so, i'm not sure this is covered in the rules in which case it's tough to apply the penalty. If there is precedent for a penalty (if it's the exact same as what happened to Dryden), then there should be a penalty. In the end, teams are encouraged to ASK and clarify, rather than just do and apologize.

And while I don't agree with teams exploting loop holes in general, on the other hand we set our rules according to the check points, so it's not surprising teams adjust their cap strategy based on this (it's only natural). I know I made a trade after the second check point that kept me under the cap based on averaging the three checkpoints, but at the same time, my team's salary was higher on average simply because I made the deal right after the second check point and basically got the player (Souray) for the second half of the season, with only having his salary count towards a third of it (the last calculation). not to be a pain, but maybe someone can summarize this in an objective way so we can have a decision made.

Nick,

The way I see it, NHL has cap rule that all teams has to follow and is being counted on a daily basis. We all know that this is not practical for our league so we have three check points. If we go by the NHL rule, than some of these teams have broken the cap rule and should be penalized. However, I understand that many of them were not aware of the issue and this was not addressed in our our league rules. Maybe in future we could add this to our league rules so each team has a fair chance to compete.
 

SPG

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,018
12
Utica, NY
Visit site
so where is the admin team on this issue?

My stance (as I stated a couple days ago) is that draft pick penalties should be applied. I'm not sure what the other members of the admin team think about the issue, but IMO we should leave the claimed players where they are.

We'll need to change the rule book so the rules are perfectly clear, but as some have already posted, it does say "yearly average" in the rules, not 2/3 of the "year."

I agree that we should add a clause that states that its the GMs responsibility to keep their payroll in line with the rules post-deadline, not the league's. The league (and Sim manager in particular) has enough things to have to keep track of without the extra responsibility of having to recalculate salary cap payrolls whenever there's a claim after the deadline.

The easiest thing to do would probably to move the 3rd calculation to the end of the regular season rather than the deadline.
 

Dryden

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,920
14
Toronto
I see it as two teams desperate to make the playoffs and one Aussie who wants to be just as good as the other two, and figured the added players would make them that much better. With this in mind they most likely figured that if they get away with it all they risk is money and not much at that. If they get caught then it was a future pick and for some its just a 4th and others a lot higher picks. I say they made their bed let them lie in it.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
My stance (as I stated a couple days ago) is that draft pick penalties should be applied. I'm not sure what the other members of the admin team think about the issue,

Speaking of the other members of the admin team. Has any time frame been decided upon for voting on the two new members of the Admin team? We had the nominees list but no vote, and with two missing votes on this issue, I'd say it could have a big influence and we should be addressing this soon.
 

Brent Burns Beard

Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
Feb 27, 2002
5,575
570
My stance (as I stated a couple days ago) is that draft pick penalties should be applied. I'm not sure what the other members of the admin team think about the issue, but IMO we should leave the claimed players where they are.

We'll need to change the rule book so the rules are perfectly clear, but as some have already posted, it does say "yearly average" in the rules, not 2/3 of the "year."

I agree that we should add a clause that states that its the GMs responsibility to keep their payroll in line with the rules post-deadline, not the league's. The league (and Sim manager in particular) has enough things to have to keep track of without the extra responsibility of having to recalculate salary cap payrolls whenever there's a claim after the deadline.

The easiest thing to do would probably to move the 3rd calculation to the end of the regular season rather than the deadline.

maybe i am not totally educated on the matter, but if they are over the cap, should they not have to remedy that (immediately) as well?
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
maybe i am not totally educated on the matter, but if they are over the cap, should they not have to remedy that (immediately) as well?

You'd think so but there's nothing in the rules forcing teams to go back under the cap limit... I think once the penalty is applied, that is considered payment of enough.

BTW, here's the cap if you take into account the most recent roster/vitals page...


Code:
	CP1 (SC)	            CP2 (SC)	             CP3 (SC)	             16-Mar	            TOT1	           TOT2
COL	40,860,620	43,295,620	47243751	49,693,751	43,799,997	44,616,664
CHI	34,537,500	34,537,500	33575000	33,575,000	34,216,667	34,216,667
STL	41,346,875	43,738,750	45588750	45,588,750	43,558,125	43,558,125
BOS	40,850,000	37,200,000	35237500	35,237,500	37,762,500	37,762,500
MTL	37,662,500	32,062,500	28112500	28,112,500	32,612,500	32,612,500
VAN	42,288,750	42,288,750	42288750	42,288,750	42,288,750	42,288,750
WAS	33,565,934	33,065,934	29502500	29,502,500	32,044,789	32,044,789
PHX	25,647,500	25,447,500	23607500	23,607,500	24,900,833	24,900,833
NJD	39,367,500	39,367,500	40417500	40,417,500	39,717,500	39,717,500
ANH	38,942,500	38,942,500	38942500	40,105,000	38,942,500	39,330,000
CGY	44,462,500	43,425,000	41163750	41,163,750	43,017,083	43,017,083
PHI	40,712,500	40,762,500	47187500	47,187,500	42,887,500	42,887,500
CAR	44,213,750	43,938,750	46387500	49,387,500	44,846,667	45,846,667
NYI	34,295,000	34,095,625	24315000	24,315,000	30,901,875	30,901,875
CBJ	43,061,875	43,142,875	44682875	44,682,875	43,629,208	43,629,208
LAK	23,507,500	24,370,000	24170000	24,170,000	24,015,833	24,015,833
TOR	42,692,750	43,822,750	44522750	44,522,750	43,679,417	43,679,417
TAM	38,150,000	38,990,000	36283750	33,033,750	37,807,917	36,724,583
EDM	44,275,000	44,200,000	44200000	44,200,000	44,225,000	44,225,000
FLA	39,840,930	41,663,430	43515930	43,515,930	41,673,430	41,673,430
PIT	28,359,322	28,359,322	40538691	40,538,691	32,419,112	32,419,112
NSH	18,836,250	18,836,250	23662184	23,662,184	20,444,895	20,444,895
NYR	37,432,500	41,232,500	44545000	44,545,000	41,070,000	41,070,000
DET	43,656,250	43,731,250	41756250	41,756,250	43,047,917	43,047,917
BUF	42,225,000	42,225,000	47250000	47,250,000	43,900,000	43,900,000
OTT	43,547,500	43,547,500	38720000	38,720,000	41,938,333	41,938,333
SJS	42,566,250	44,253,750	39615625	44,853,125	42,145,208	43,891,042
DAL	42,035,000	37,985,000	36985000	36,985,000	39,001,667	39,001,667
ATL	31,495,000	31,775,000	30145000	23,475,000	31,138,333	28,915,000
MIN	37,122,040	37,172,040	37044540	37,044,540	37,112,873	37,112,873

Total 1 is the salary with the three checkpoints, total 2 is the salary with the first 2 checkpoints and current roster as of March 16.
 

Ville Isopaa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,253
10
Helsinki, Finland
Visit site
First off, I'm not even sure what happened. I've read through the posts, but am still a little confused by some of what is being discussed regarding waiver and cap (which have nothing to do with one another). Is it a case of a team making a waiver claim for a player after the third . If so, i'm not sure this is covered in the rules in which case it's tough to apply the penalty.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Waiver claims after the 3rd checkpoint.

If there is precedent for a penalty (if it's the exact same as what happened to Dryden), then there should be a penalty. In the end, teams are encouraged to ASK and clarify, rather than just do and apologize.

Dryden was over the cap at the 3rd checkpoint, so no, it's not the same thing.

And while I don't agree with teams exploting loop holes in general, on the other hand we set our rules according to the check points, so it's not surprising teams adjust their cap strategy based on this (it's only natural). I know I made a trade after the second check point that kept me under the cap based on averaging the three checkpoints, but at the same time, my team's salary was higher on average simply because I made the deal right after the second check point and basically got the player (Souray) for the second half of the season, with only having his salary count towards a third of it (the last calculation). not to be a pain, but maybe someone can summarize this in an objective way so we can have a decision made.

This is exactly the way I thought it worked. Start of the season = 1/3 of the yearly cap hit. after 1/3 of the season the cap is for the next 1/3. Finally the cap hit at the deadline is for the remaining 1/3. What happens after the checkpoints doesn't change the cap hit for that checkpoint, the added salary only counts towards the next checkpoint. Since the cap is calculated on the 3 checkpoints and the changes in between only effect the next checkpoint during the season, why would there suddenly be a difference here after the 3rd checkpoint? Since the final checkpoint has been passed, the salaries shouldn't count towards the cap anymore.

But, what I really don't understand is where the penalties would come from. The final cap hit calculation has been done at the deadline. The rule that was missed by all of us involved was one that was posted on the boards a year ago and wasn't entered in to the rules. That rule doesn't say anything about penalties, it states:

"Following the final salary cap measurement of any year, any waiver claims that would put a team over the salary cap (based on year end average) will be declined".

How that can be interpreted as 1) that there would be a new cap calculation or 2) a penalty for nobody involved in the waiverprocess remembering the rule in question?

In the end, the reasonable soloution in my opinon is that the waiver claims go back to the original teams, who can again put them on waivers if they still want to send the players down to farm.
 
Mar 1, 2002
66,105
12,072
Then either (A)resim the games affected, or (B) take the penalty.

Those are the only fair options for breaking the rules that WERE posted on the board.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
This is exactly the way I thought it worked. Start of the season = 1/3 of the yearly cap hit. after 1/3 of the season the cap is for the next 1/3. Finally the cap hit at the deadline is for the remaining 1/3. What happens after the checkpoints doesn't change the cap hit for that checkpoint, the added salary only counts towards the next checkpoint. Since the cap is calculated on the 3 checkpoints and the changes in between only effect the next checkpoint during the season, why would there suddenly be a difference here after the 3rd checkpoint? Since the final checkpoint has been passed, the salaries shouldn't count towards the cap anymore.

So basically what you are saying is that after the trade deadline, we should just allow you to add as much salary as you want. Hell go over the cap by 15 million, no problem. I'm sorry but I have a big problem with this.

I'm with Adil, Dryden, Sean G among others on this one. We need to apply the draft pick penalty in these cases. I also think that teams should need to get under the cap as well by waiving players off their roster. Doesn't matter who they get rid of (whether its the players that originally put them over the limit), as long as they can get under the cap.

In my other sim league I'm in, the MXFHL (which Robb and Sean K were also members of), as soon as a team goes over the cap, they have 24 hours to get under. If they don't get under, a financial penalty of 1 million$ is applied. Another million is taken off for every 24 hours they are over. So our penalties in this league are actually quite leaniant.

I'm pretty much done arguing over this issue. I've said what I believe to be true, and I hope the admin team comes to a decision soon that is good for the league.
 

Ville Isopaa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,253
10
Helsinki, Finland
Visit site
So basically what you are saying is that after the trade deadline, we should just allow you to add as much salary as you want. Hell go over the cap by 15 million, no problem. I'm sorry but I have a big problem with this.

Pretty much that's how the rules looked like, without that one post on the message boards a year ago. Since you can do that between the other checkpoints, I don't see why I would have had reason to belive it wasn't like that after the 3rd one. Also, we're talking about 4-500k of going over the cap by adding a 4th liner here.

If the rulechange about not being allowed to claim players after the deadline would have been in the rulebook, none of this would have happened. Since it wasn't and there has been several updates since, I had no reason to belive it wasn't up to date. The waiver rules were in fact updated last time on the 10th of January, so they should have been up to date.
I am fine with enforcing it in retrospect making the waiver pick-up (Holik for me) to go back to the original team, Tampa.

I'm with Adil, Dryden, Sean G among others on this one. We need to apply the draft pick penalty in these cases. I also think that teams should need to get under the cap as well by waiving players off their roster. Doesn't matter who they get rid of (whether its the players that originally put them over the limit), as long as they can get under the cap.

Brock, seriously, you can't have the cake and eat it too. Either the players go back to the original teams now, or then the salary at the end of the season will be used to calculate the cap hit for the 3rd checkpoint. If that salary is over the cap, then sure teams have exceeded the cap and would get the apropriate draft pick penalty. Since there is a rule that allows a team to go over the cap as much as 10m and take a pick penalty, you can't really force a team to go under the cap like you are suggesting.
 

SPG

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,018
12
Utica, NY
Visit site
So basically what you are saying is that after the trade deadline, we should just allow you to add as much salary as you want. Hell go over the cap by 15 million, no problem. I'm sorry but I have a big problem with this.

I'm with Adil, Dryden, Sean G among others on this one. We need to apply the draft pick penalty in these cases. I also think that teams should need to get under the cap as well by waiving players off their roster. Doesn't matter who they get rid of (whether its the players that originally put them over the limit), as long as they can get under the cap.

In my other sim league I'm in, the MXFHL (which Robb and Sean K were also members of), as soon as a team goes over the cap, they have 24 hours to get under. If they don't get under, a financial penalty of 1 million$ is applied. Another million is taken off for every 24 hours they are over. So our penalties in this league are actually quite leaniant.

I'm pretty much done arguing over this issue. I've said what I believe to be true, and I hope the admin team comes to a decision soon that is good for the league.

I've emailed the admin team on the issue so we can make an official ruling. Expect a decision within the next 24 hours.
 

Toronto_AGM_Adil

Registered User
Apr 9, 2006
337
9
Pretty much that's how the rules looked like, without that one post on the message boards a year ago.

If the rulechange about not being allowed to claim players after the deadline would have been in the rulebook, none of this would have happened. Since it wasn't and there has been several updates since, I had no reason to belive it wasn't up to date. The waiver rules were in fact updated last time on the 10th of January, so they should have been up to date.

It's not an easy task updating the rulebook and I'm sorry but we've all operate with the assumption that the rulebook is not always upto date and that we have to keep abreast of recent posts from the admin.

Claiming that you were not given notice of the rule change since it wasn't in the rulebook would open up the floor for all sorts of rule objections and reversals... a lot of rules have been announced in posts, not just this one.

On the other hand, the fact that the rule announced was not adhered to does not aleviate you of your responsability to keep under the cap. The fact that in the post it was announced that there was a loophole and it was to be closed is enough of a warning IMHO.

If you had seen this discrepency in the waiver section of the rules then there was nothing stopping you from bringing it up to Sean or the rest of the admin team to get the rule book clarified... if you saw the loophole in the rulebook and felt that it didn't need clarification then Drew's post should have been warning enough not use the loophole.
 

The old geezer

Registered User
Feb 10, 2007
715
0
"Following the final salary cap measurement of any year, any waiver claims that would put a team over the salary cap (based on year end average) will be declined".

The quote Ville dug up is correct. That came as a result of a similar claim after the 3rd measurement last season and the waiver claim was declined by myself. Sorry I can't remember the teams involved but I remember declining the claim.

As for the penalty everyone's trying to remember it was related to minimum OV though it did had a waiver link. The Islanders had put Leetch on waivers who of course was claimed which dropped them below minimum OV and so the OV penalty was applied.

OV is not an 'average' calc as you cannot drop be below it period.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
The quote Ville dug up is correct. That came as a result of a similar claim after the 3rd measurement last season and the waiver claim was declined by myself. Sorry I can't remember the teams involved but I remember declining the claim.

As for the penalty everyone's trying to remember it was related to minimum OV though it did had a waiver link. The Islanders had put Leetch on waivers who of course was claimed which dropped them below minimum OV and so the OV penalty was applied.

OV is not an 'average' calc as you cannot drop be below it period.

I see no point in discussing about this. Why not add a rule about maintaining average salary of cap and move on. As for the teams who are above average cap, maybe we can give them a chance to waive the players and if no team claims them than they go their minor league team and are not eligible for playoffs run.

As for the OV that I was penalized, I wasn't aware of the rule and I have accepted it and moved on.
 
Last edited:

SPG

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,018
12
Utica, NY
Visit site
Ok, gents, here's where we stand.

There was a little bit of a split in opinion among admin members, but after some discussion, we have two options. Because of the confusion on the rules and lack of a rulebook clause addressing this scenario, we're going to let each GM choose what course of action to take.

===============================================

OPTION 1
If the teams would like to keep the players they claimed, they may, but corresponding draft pick penalties will be applied (as listed in the rulebook) and they will be prohibited from claiming any other players off waivers for the rest of the season.

OPTION 2
We will give the teams a chance to reverse the waiver claim if they choose to do so.
The player in question goes to the next team in line that put in a claim (if that information if still available). Any claiming team must be in compliance with the cap after the salary is added to their payroll or the claim will be denied. If nobody else put in a claim (or if the info is no longer available), the player will be put back on waivers and will be sent to Tampa's minor league roster if there are no claims.

===============================================

I'm of the opinion that the penalties should be applied, but because there was a slight difference of opinion among the league admins, I think this is the best compromise. I realize that some people will not be happy and others will, but this is the final decision.

NOTE: Each team in question (Colorado, San Jose, and .... ? Carolina ?) must indicate what option they'll be choosing ASAP or option 1 and the draft pick penalties will be defaulted to.

For next season, we will either be making the end of the regular season our 3rd checkpoint OR strictly enforcing the waiver claim denial if someone tries this again. That will be decided in the near future. We'll also be making sure the rulebook is fully up to date going into next season.

Also, watch for the admin team overhaul to be finally completed in the next week or so.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
Ok, gents, here's where we stand.

There was a little bit of a split in opinion among admin members, but after some discussion, we have two options. Because of the confusion on the rules and lack of a rulebook clause addressing this scenario, we're going to let each GM choose what course of action to take.

===============================================

OPTION 1
If the teams would like to keep the players they claimed, they may, but corresponding draft pick penalties will be applied (as listed in the rulebook) and they will be prohibited from claiming any other players off waivers for the rest of the season.

OPTION 2
We will give the teams a chance to reverse the waiver claim if they choose to do so.
The player in question goes to the next team in line that put in a claim (if that information if still available). Any claiming team must be in compliance with the cap after the salary is added to their payroll or the claim will be denied. If nobody else put in a claim (or if the info is no longer available), the player will be put back on waivers and will be sent to Tampa's minor league roster if there are no claims.

===============================================

I'm of the opinion that the penalties should be applied, but because there was a slight difference of opinion among the league admins, I think this is the best compromise.

NOTE: Each team in question (Colorado, San Jose, and .... ? Carolina ?) must indicate what option they'll be choosing ASAP or option 1 and the draft pick penalties will be defaulted to.

For next season, we will either be making the end of the regular season our 3rd checkpoint OR strictly enforcing the waiver claim denial if someone tries this again. That will be decided in the near future. We'll also be making sure the rulebook is fully up to date going into next season.

Also, watch for the admin team overhaul to be finally completed in the next week or so.

Right on. Thanks Sean and fellow Admin members.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
NOTE: Each team in question (Colorado, San Jose, and .... ? Carolina ?) must indicate what option they'll be choosing ASAP or option 1 and the draft pick penalties will be defaulted to.

Just a quick question actually. Is there a date and time that has been set as the deadline for this decision? ASAP is kind of vague and I think may set up further problems because it's not really decisive enough. Maybe like Wednesday by 12 midnight or something? Or did you guys already give those GM's a timetable to reply by.
 

SPG

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,018
12
Utica, NY
Visit site
Just a quick question actually. Is there a date and time that has been set as the deadline for this decision? ASAP is kind of vague and I think may set up further problems because it's not really decisive enough. Maybe like Wednesday by 12 midnight or something? Or did you guys already give those GM's a timetable to reply by.

No timetable has been set, but each GM will be given reasonable time to respond. ASAP is vague, but that is really when we need to hear their decision in order to get the rosters back in order. If a couple days go by without responses, emails will be sent to each GM with a deadline.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->