Roughriders Over Cap in 2013

[Jaxon]

I would like to see stiffer penalties for cap violations, but I recognize that this current Saskatchewan amount is really quite minor.   I would propose that an escalation should occur for repeat offenders, with a re-instatement after 10 clean years. 

 

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming.  

 

I think that draft picks would be a last resort.   I'd rather subject a serious multiple offender (which they are not) to other sanctions, such a "dispersal draft" where they protect 20 players, and the other teams in draft order get to take one other player off of their roster.  That would be much more effective than taking draft picks, and solves the 'previously traded' draft pick issue.

[holoman]

I would like to see stiffer penalties for cap violations, but I recognize that this current Saskatchewan amount is really quite minor.   I would propose that an escalation should occur for repeat offenders, with a re-instatement after 10 clean years. 

 

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming.  

 

I think that draft picks would be a last resort.   I'd rather subject a serious multiple offender (which they are not) to other sanctions, such a "dispersal draft" where they protect 20 players, and the other teams in draft order get to take one other player off of their roster.  That would be much more effective than taking draft picks, and solves the 'previously traded' draft pick issue.

 

If it came to that resort where a draft pick was lost, but that team had already traded away the pick, I guess the next best thing would be to have the team forfeit the next best available pick

[max power]

Why can't they just have a hard cap like the NHL or NFL, where they literally can not go over the cap, because the league won't approve contracts that would cause them to be over.

 

Is it so hard for them to track the cap throughout the season instead of this bush-league honour system that they seem to be using?

[Mike]

Why can't they just have a hard cap like the NHL or NFL, where they literally can not go over the cap, because the league won't approve contracts that would cause them to be over.

 

Is it so hard for them to track the cap throughout the season instead of this bush-league honour system that they seem to be using?

 

That'd be nearly impossible because the CFL doesn't allow you to store anywhere near enough contracts to deal with a mass amount of injuries.

[iso_55]

We could bring back the death penalty.

[bearpants]

I would like to see stiffer penalties for cap violations, but I recognize that this current Saskatchewan amount is really quite minor.   I would propose that an escalation should occur for repeat offenders, with a re-instatement after 10 clean years. 

 

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming.  

 

I think that draft picks would be a last resort.   I'd rather subject a serious multiple offender (which they are not) to other sanctions, such a "dispersal draft" where they protect 20 players, and the other teams in draft order get to take one other player off of their roster.  That would be much more effective than taking draft picks, and solves the 'previously traded' draft pick issue.

 

Did you really think this one through???? Since in this hypothetical situation the Bombers now own that draft pick, you're say that if Sask went over the cap, the Bombers get penalized.... Obviously the penalty would be to take away or downgrade the offending team's highest draft pick...

 

or maybe I'm reading it wrong and you're suggesting that the Bombers have committed the infraction and get penalized with the draft pick we acquired in a trade... which would make sense.. 

[Jacquie]

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming. 

 

The draft pick would not be voided. The rules at CFL.ca say:

Non-Monetary Penalties:

Forfeiture of next available first round draft pick for Clubs that exceed SEC over $100,000

Forfeiture of next available first and second round draft picks for Clubs that exceed SEC over $300,000

Meaning if they traded their 2015 1st round pick then they would forfeit their 2016 1st round pick.

[Jaxon]

 

I would like to see stiffer penalties for cap violations, but I recognize that this current Saskatchewan amount is really quite minor.   I would propose that an escalation should occur for repeat offenders, with a re-instatement after 10 clean years. 

 

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming.  

 

I think that draft picks would be a last resort.   I'd rather subject a serious multiple offender (which they are not) to other sanctions, such a "dispersal draft" where they protect 20 players, and the other teams in draft order get to take one other player off of their roster.  That would be much more effective than taking draft picks, and solves the 'previously traded' draft pick issue.

 

Did you really think this one through???? Since in this hypothetical situation the Bombers now own that draft pick, you're say that if Sask went over the cap, the Bombers get penalized.... Obviously the penalty would be to take away or downgrade the offending team's highest draft pick...

 

or maybe I'm reading it wrong and you're suggesting that the Bombers have committed the infraction and get penalized with the draft pick we acquired in a trade... which would make sense.. 

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  My point is that it would be impractical to penalize the wrong team, so other arrangements would have to be made, which would be less than effective.  If an offending team has traded their first and second picks, then their "highest" draft  would be in the third round, which may not be all that valuable.  This could be especially true in your scenario if a team knows they are over, then they would intentionally trade their picks to minimize the penalty.     For a penalty to be effective, it has to mean something, and I don't think that Draft picks are neccesarily a meaningful penalty. 

[Jaxon]

 

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming. 

 

The draft pick would not be voided. The rules at CFL.ca say:

Non-Monetary Penalties:

Forfeiture of next available first round draft pick for Clubs that exceed SEC over $100,000

Forfeiture of next available first and second round draft picks for Clubs that exceed SEC over $300,000

Meaning if they traded their 2015 1st round pick then they would forfeit their 2016 1st round pick.

 

I realize that this is current rule, I'm just concerned that it could be abused.  Certain GM's don't value picks highly, so they trade them off for established players.   It could go on indefinately.   I suppose that the rule could be amended to prevent offending teams from trading picks until they have "paid" the penalty, but I just don't see draft picks as being as a strong enough deterent in the event of a serious offence.   Justice delayed is Justice denied.

[17to85]

 

 

That being said, taking draft picks, or moving down in the draft, is NOT an easy solution.  Many teams trade (or swap) their draft picks, often a couple of years in advance.   Is the receipient of a draft pick to pay the price?   Can you imagine if the Bombers traded to get Sask's first round pick in 2015, but they were a small amount over the cap and that draft pick was now voided?  We'd be screeming. 

 

The draft pick would not be voided. The rules at CFL.ca say:

Non-Monetary Penalties:

Forfeiture of next available first round draft pick for Clubs that exceed SEC over $100,000

Forfeiture of next available first and second round draft picks for Clubs that exceed SEC over $300,000

Meaning if they traded their 2015 1st round pick then they would forfeit their 2016 1st round pick.

 

I realize that this is current rule, I'm just concerned that it could be abused.  Certain GM's don't value picks highly, so they trade them off for established players.   It could go on indefinately.   I suppose that the rule could be amended to prevent offending teams from trading picks until they have "paid" the penalty, but I just don't see draft picks as being as a strong enough deterent in the event of a serious offence.   Justice delayed is Justice denied.

 

I would think that if a GM was abusing it like that then the league would step in and change the rule or just arbitrarily decide on another punishment and enforce that.