Change the word "furious" to "perturbed" and the words "heavy handed" to "legitimate". So I guess we have: Senators perturbed about legitimate HFNHL ruling. I recently traded a player who I had resigned before the UFA period (aka free agency) and the trade was thrown out because well there is a rule in place that does not permit resigned UFA's to be traded until the All-Star break. Note: The trade was declined but I was given the option of paying the penalty. Something I have decided to do. You can overcome this rule by paying a penalty of the player's salary (for a year). Now, I understand why the rule exists, Krueger explained it well here: http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=132812 However, I also believe that the basic premise of the rule is not being affected in this particular situation (nor will it be in the situation for other teams crippled by this ruling). Keep in mind that some of these players were signed during the last HFNHL season (2003-2004), well before there was significant talk about an NHL lockout or a cap, let alone the existing cap structure in the HFNHL. This isn't a case of "you made your bed, now sleep in it", at least it does not appear so IMO. I fail to see how preventing teams from trying to fit under the cap, or become more economically viable is helping the league out in the long run. Please note that I am not asking that this rule be thrown out, as I think this rule is perfectly valid. However, what I am asking for is a one time exception considering the circumstances and events that have occured since these players were signed. As it stands, even if it means that the penalty is reduced to paying half the player's salary ... it would be an improvement. Thank you for your time.