Torres at it again

[LordKOTL]

I'm not necessarily against that, but I think something as one-time as a fine for the coach/GM might not be enough. Take Babcock or Quenneville, and your GM du jure: Even if you smack them with a 1M+ fine they could recover from that.

If there was a way to make it so that if a douchenozzle's lack of restraint can seriously tank a season enough that it could put the coach/GM's jobs at risk for signing/playing said douchnozzle, while not completely hampering the development of a youngster, I'd be all for it.

The only real reason I went for the youngsters was the fact that they were eligible for waivers. My thought process was that if there weren't players that could be waived to clear the punitive cap hit, then the team would have to waive someone, and could lose that someone. Again, me going harsh. I also think in that case any player "off" the main roster to clear a punitive cap hit should not be precluded from practicing with the team--they just can't play in the games.

It could be approached from an opposite direction in that the players not included from the roster need to be waiver-ineligible and they can't be "waived: but they can't be dressed thus not stunting the development of a promising youth, but then you risk "sacrificial lambs" which don't hurt the team (i.e. Bickell/Runblad used to "clear" the punitive cap).

I think the length of a suspension has to be taken into consideration as well. If a guy is nailed for a 5-game suspension how much could it *really* stunt the growth of a prospect? I think a long-term 41 gamer is very rare especially with Torres really the last of the überdouches. That being said if a GM wants to sign Matt Cooke/Coach hen subsequently wants to play Matt Cooke they have to be mindful that if Cooke goes full Douchenozzle it could tank the team, tank their prospect development, and threaten their livelyhood, meanining that it would give them a significant amount of pause before signing him.

Again, my view on it. Even a major fine like you mentioned would be the step in the right direction.

 

[MassHavoc]

I'm not necessarily against that, but I think something as one-time as a fine for the coach/GM might not be enough. Take Babcock or Quenneville, and your GM du jure: Even if you smack them with a 1M+ fine they could recover from that.

If there was a way to make it so that if a douchenozzle's lack of restraint can seriously tank a season enough that it could put the coach/GM's jobs at risk for signing/playing said douchnozzle, while not completely hampering the development of a youngster, I'd be all for it.

The only real reason I went for the youngsters was the fact that they were eligible for waivers. My thought process was that if there weren't players that could be waived to clear the punitive cap hit, then the team would have to waive someone, and could lose that someone. Again, me going harsh. I also think in that case any player "off" the main roster to clear a punitive cap hit should not be precluded from practicing with the team--they just can't play in the games.

It could be approached from an opposite direction in that the players not included from the roster need to be waiver-ineligible and they can't be "waived: but they can't be dressed thus not stunting the development of a promising youth, but then you risk "sacrificial lambs" which don't hurt the team (i.e. Bickell/Runblad used to "clear" the punitive cap).

I think the length of a suspension has to be taken into consideration as well. If a guy is nailed for a 5-game suspension how much could it *really* stunt the growth of a prospect? I think a long-term 41 gamer is very rare especially with Torres really the last of the überdouches. That being said if a GM wants to sign Matt Cooke/Coach hen subsequently wants to play Matt Cooke they have to be mindful that if Cooke goes full Douchenozzle it could tank the team, tank their prospect development, and threaten their livelyhood, meanining that it would give them a significant amount of pause before signing him.

Again, my view on it. Even a major fine like you mentioned would be the step in the right direction.

Yeah, I really just don't know the answer and I would think that the players association would be as big of a hurdle as anything here, they don't want any cap considerations happening I would imagine because they don't want to shink the pool of available money to their players. I can see where GMs would have to start building in cushion for these types of incidents and then it will start affecting contract negotiations and such. I just wish there was a better way.

The only think I can think of that could be effective that everyone would agree on is if they would go back and time and not hire an idiot to dole out enforcement by throwing at a dart board. I think if they just made mandatory no tolerance penalties against them with appropriate escalators and less grey area it would make the players physically have to think before they do anything because they know that once they get to a certain point, every bad hit could cost them a half of season or a year. I think that right there could have the potential you are looking for against the GM. if a guy is going to sing either player A or player B, and player B is already sitting on 3 infractions that you know is going to cost him half a year no matter what on the next hit, maybe it's the deterrent you're looking for to make him go with player A instead?

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

How about fining the coach, and double the GM. I just don't like an idiot with a bad hit having the effect of being able to ruin another players career from fallout damage.

I think that the suspension + how many games a player is out up to an 82 game max, meaning if you knock out player A for an entire season it's ____ games + 82.

 

[LordKOTL]

I think that the suspension + how many games a player is out up to an 82 game max, meaning if you knock out player A for an entire season it's ____ games + 82.

Yeah, I really just don't know the answer and I would think that the players association would be as big of a hurdle as anything here, they don't want any cap considerations happening I would imagine because they don't want to shink the pool of available money to their players. I can see where GMs would have to start building in cushion for these types of incidents and then it will start affecting contract negotiations and such. I just wish there was a better way.

The only think I can think of that could be effective that everyone would agree on is if they would go back and time and not hire an idiot to dole out enforcement by throwing at a dart board. I think if they just made mandatory no tolerance penalties against them with appropriate escalators and less grey area it would make the players physically have to think before they do anything because they know that once they get to a certain point, every bad hit could cost them a half of season or a year. I think that right there could have the potential you are looking for against the GM. if a guy is going to sing either player A or player B, and player B is already sitting on 3 infractions that you know is going to cost him half a year no matter what on the next hit, maybe it's the deterrent you're looking for to make him go with player A instead?

Going on both of these:

I think that this needs to happen in addition to punitive damages to the coaches/GM's. I think that for every penalty that warrants a major (as determined by an after-the-game league review), each major-or-worse penalty (possibly including fighting) has a set *minimum* amount of games that a player is suspended for. No matter what the circumstances, each act that could be a major gets you digned for whatever the minimum time is for that (i.e. a Major elbow is worth 3, ditto on a major charge. You do both and you get 6 minimum).

After that, you add in time for resulting injury--if any. I am personally all for "until the other player is medically cleared", but even if there was a sliding scale I do think that causing an injury due to an illegal play you need to get punished more.

After that, add a qualifier for repeat offender. Add a multipler based on how many times a player has been suspended in the past total.

After that, add a multipler based on recent offender status--add a higher multipler for any infraction done within 164 games (2 seasons) actually played by the offending player.