|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Jun 28, 2015 16:20:36 GMT -5
The Admins have decided to saction the Florida Panther's GM for 5 draft positions for not having an NHL goalie. The goalie starts on that team was particularly poor (3 goalie starts) and it did an impact the teams standings enough for a sanction.
As bigdl has noted in the shoutbox below, the argument against the sanction is that he did not receive a warning or a 2 week grace period. He did not get a warning or a 2 week grace period. However, the issue has spanned over 2 seasons where there was ample time achieve a legal roster but we saw no signs of improvement. In 2013/2014, the team only achieved 7 goalie starts. The injury to Khabi would still meet the criteria of a sanction as the rules say the team must has a healthy NHL goalie on the roster. The decision was further supported when the goalie starts actually worsened from the previous year (Reduced to 3 goalie starts when the next worst lowest team had 20 starts). For these reasons, we felt that a sanction is warranted. The Admins have been very lenient on the rules this season but this was an extreme case where action was warranted. This is a free league and everyone complies with the rules for the benefit of the league. The argument of not receiving a warning means that can't be sanction for having an illegal roster does not honour the spirit of the rules. The warning/2 week grace period was put in place for the purpose of allowing GMs to fix an unexpected change in their goalie situation. It does not mean no sanctions can be placed unless a warning is issued. The lack of such warning is not a strong argument for 10 goalie starts over the span of 2 NHL seasons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 17:31:55 GMT -5
I think something may need to be done about the NYR/PIT trade...Pitt now traded 5 and 38 for Eichel...and NYR would never have accepted that nor considered trading the pick if he knew it would be 2 overall and not 3 overall.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Jun 28, 2015 17:51:37 GMT -5
Relying on the technicality of not having received a warning is, in my view, an unreasonable response to the sanctions levied by the admins in this case. If the sanctions related merely to a short period of time then I would have a tonne of sympathy for the Florida GM; after all, real life issues come up that pull us away from our teams and in those cases a warning is appropriate to draw attention back to any management issues relating to our fantasy teams.
However, three goalie starts over an entire season, and only ten starts over the course of two seasons, is an inexcusably long time to be non-compliant with a straightforward rule. A GM would have to be wilfully blind to the state of his/her team to fail to appreciate that the team was not in compliance with the rule during that entire period of time. In fact, the Panthers GM admitted to negligent management of the team.
Requiring warnings to be issued is a great way to ensure that people are not unduly punished for merely prioritizing real life over fantasy for periods of time. While the admins should make every effort to ensure that warnings are indeed issued to non-compliant teams, the failure to give a warning should not be sufficient for a GM to escape punishment after blatantly flouting the rules for an entire season (or two).
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Jun 28, 2015 17:54:54 GMT -5
I've notified both NYR and PIT. We're working something out. Just waiting on their input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 18:00:22 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't have made the trade had I known about the pending sanction, but I'd like to hear how PIT feels about all this. We should be able to work something out amicably.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jun 28, 2015 18:53:04 GMT -5
Only reason I had my pick on the block is because I thought I wouldnt get marner/strome. Now I get Marner and 38th back, what's not to like?
Now 32 dropping to 37 sucks since I was anticipating that pick to be near 1st...is the sanction for all of FLAs picks including the 2nd he traded to me or just 1st?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 19:25:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the all but useless bone given the timeline.
I have never claimed that my neglect of the goalie situation was right. That I was wrong does not mean that the admins ignoring the rules is OK. You can't ask gms to be accountable if the admins are not going to be similarly accountable. The admins failed in holding up the rules just as much as I failed in managing my team. If the admins don't like the warning process then change the rules. Claiming that you're lenient in enforcing the rules but now wanting to enforce this rule after not adhering to the process is ridiculous. The method of rule enforcement in this league is the same method I used to manage my team this season, shirk my in-season responsibilities and then do something during the off-season. You call it lenience I call it laziness on both accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 19:30:30 GMT -5
Relying on the technicality of not having received a warning is, in my view, an unreasonable response to the sanctions levied by the admins in this case. If the sanctions related merely to a short period of time then I would have a tonne of sympathy for the Florida GM; after all, real life issues come up that pull us away from our teams and in those cases a warning is appropriate to draw attention back to any management issues relating to our fantasy teams. However, three goalie starts over an entire season, and only ten starts over the course of two seasons, is an inexcusably long time to be non-compliant with a straightforward rule. A GM would have to be wilfully blind to the state of his/her team to fail to appreciate that the team was not in compliance with the rule during that entire period of time. In fact, the Panthers GM admitted to negligent management of the team. Requiring warnings to be issued is a great way to ensure that people are not unduly punished for merely prioritizing real life over fantasy for periods of time. While the admins should make every effort to ensure that warnings are indeed issued to non-compliant teams, the failure to give a warning should not be sufficient for a GM to escape punishment after blatantly flouting the rules for an entire season (or two). Don't have warnings in the rule if you're not going to give them. It's that simple. The number of starts is irrelevant as I could have virtually the same number of starts with Justin Peters. You can make excuses for not following the rules but its still the exact same thing I did with my team. If the admins felt I should have been sanctioned last year they should have done it then, not this year when they shirked their responsibilities. The admins are equally as negligent, this is a farce. If the actions were so egregious why did no one seemingly notice until a week before the draft. Keep pushing the lenience horse shit to cover for the fact that the admins did dick all to follow the rules during the season.
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Jun 28, 2015 19:45:29 GMT -5
The issue I have with this is that the sanctions were implemented so close to the draft thet it has an effect on the draft and trades that happened recently. Especially the first round implications, kinda opens up a can of worms. If anything I think maybe losing a third round pick if they have one. I completely agree there should be some sort of sanction, but maybe there should be some sort of warning first.
Edit: Wrote this before I saw BigDL rebuttal and looked at his roster. There is a few valid points but I can't fault Admins as they have lives too, they are looking after integrity of league. Also if FLA was salary cap compliant then they are following the rules. Trying to find a goalie is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Teams aren't giving up starting goalies, unless they are offered a kings ransom. FLA is putting prospects together that gives him the opportunity to try and get a goalie. I would say now no sanction, unless he broke a specific league rule.
|
|