Housekeeping

[Virtual Jarmo]

Well, unfortunately, conversations were only between Adam and I where he stated that I was under the cap by waiving Pahlsson. I only added $200K in the Burrows deal so that really doesn't factor in anything as apparently I'm $700K over. So I guess he doesn't understand his own rules either?

I'm not the one struggling with this, you are.

Of all the sperm, I can't fucking believe you're the one that made it to your mom's egg.


Oh, and fuck you for second guessing me. You've had several respected GMs tell you that you're wrong, yet you refuse to believe it. This isn't some vendetta against you. These are the rules that everyone has to follow to participate in EHEC.

[CapsGM]

i hated goosebumps

no matter what, i'd end up dying some bullshit death

[Montreal Canadiens]

Well, unfortunately, conversations were only between Adam and I where he stated that I was under the cap by waiving Pahlsson. I only added $200K in the Burrows deal so that really doesn't factor in anything as apparently I'm $700K over. So I guess he doesn't understand his own rules either?

I'm not the one struggling with this, you are.

Of all the sperm, I can't fucking believe you're the one that made it to your mom's egg.


Oh, and fuck you for second guessing me. You've had several respected GMs tell you that you're wrong, yet you refuse to believe it. This isn't some vendetta against you. These are the rules that everyone has to follow to participate in EHEC.

You agreed with me at first? You even said I was right until somebody...I think it was Tim? That said no.

I went off your discussion to me, privately, of what I had to do to get under the cap a few weeks ago. I followed them, and now you're going back and saying wait a minute, you're actually not under the cap.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Plus, aren't you suppose to automatically reject deals that put teams over the cap? You stated that to me clearly about DET. and If Burrows put me over the cap, that deal should be rejected? No? Am I wrong there too?

Regarding this, it's a grey area. If a team goes over the cap by a manageable amount via a trade, I'm assuming that they have a plan to get under the cap. If a trade is going to put a team so far over the cap that they're going to have trouble getting under, then, I'm far less likely to allow it.

There's no automatic reject unless we're talking about a trade that puts a team in serious financial trouble.

[SharksGM]

Yeah Adam you're doing such a bad job of making sure that Brad stays under the cap. Worst cap consultant ever.

[Virtual Jarmo]

You agreed with me at first? You even said I was right until somebody...I think it was Tim? That said no.

I went off your discussion to me, privately, of what I had to do to get under the cap a few weeks ago. I followed them, and now you're going back and saying wait a minute, you're actually not under the cap.

I did not agree with you nor did I say you were right. I made a typo as I was walking out the door. I immediately corrected it upon returning home, along with quoting the section of the Rulebook that was in question.

A couple weeks ago does not mean shit right now. Right now, you're over the cap.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Dan, I was just proving my point that I indeed, as the league saw, was under the cap with that trade.

And to set the record straight, I didn't do anything wrong in the MILFH days, you were being a dick, which you admitted to, and apologized over and over for. Then, after apologizing, asked me to join EHEC, after a few days I accepted, and now here you are all over again.

If you hate me so much, and I'm such a dick to you, why apologize and invite me here?

[Jets GM]

Come on guys, enough. This isn't constructive or helpful, it was funny at first but has gone to far now.

[Virtual Jarmo]

If you hate me so much, and I'm such a dick to you, why apologize and invite me here?

Under the hopes that people change. I had changed for the better and hoped that you had as well. I'm probably not handling myself as well as I could be in this latest incident, but I'm frustrated and pissed off. And rightfully so. And a lot of the other GMs involved in this conversation would stand behind me for feeling that way.

I could care less if you're a dick to me as a person. But, constantly causing a scene in the league, belittling other GMs and walking around as if rules don't apply to you really bothers me.

As I said, the only thing I ask for, and not even vocally, but subtly, is respect from the other GMs for what I do out of my own free time and free will. With the exception of my character, nothing forces me to do this. I receive no compensation, and frankly, dedicate a lot of time I could be spending on other things to being the Commissioner here.

I don't believe in walking away from something when people need me. A lot of the EHEC GMs use this as an escape from daily life - school or work - or their responsibilities as a boyfriend, husband, father, etc. That's why I keep doing it.

Most appreciate it. One doesn't. And that's fine. You can choose to handle yourself however you want to. But, the other GMs in the league have established that the problem is not me.

So, if you do not like the way you are being treated, if you do not like the rules that the other GMs abide by, if you do not want to play by those rules, you can leave and I won't stop you. If you want to stay, play by the rules, and refrain from complaining every time something doesn't go your way, you're welcome to stay.

The choice is yours, up until I have to make it for you, which will happen if you do not get this salary cap situation under control.

That's the last I'm going to say about this. Get under the cap or face the penalties. I'm done responding to this back-and-forth unless a question about a league issue is brought up.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I thought things would change as well, but apparently not.

Not too long ago we spoke daily on MSN/facebook/whatever.

But, constantly causing a scene in the league, belittling other GMs and walking around as if rules don't apply to you really bothers me.

Now seriously, how do I cause a scene? This thread was strictly obviously me not understand how this cap situation was shaping down. Nowhere did there need to be 4 other GM's posting in this. I don't walk around thinking the league rules don't apply to me, I was under the assumption I was under the league rules, and judging by our conversations you were as well.

I ran ITC for about 6 seasons, I know how much work it takes, that league wasn't anywhere near as complex and realistic as this one and that was still a ton of work. Nowhere have I ever said you don't do any work, or the job you do is bad. I feel as if I've always given you that respect. Do I express my opinion about things? Yes, sometimes, but I feel as a GM, I have a right to that. I'm never disrespectful or insulting towards you about it.

You may be frustrated and pissed off, and as am I. I had to give away Pahlsson because of technicalities, had to have Hemsky a higher contract because of another technicality. Then, I get a suspension to one of my players for one freaking game, and all hell breaks loose. Now have to get rid of somebody else for free because I'm over the cap for one single game.

Until today I was under the cap, so really if you want to fire me for being over the cap, then ultimately that's your choice.

[SharksGM]

4 other GMs showed up here because this isn't your personal thread and you're continuing to make an ass of yourself. You could have solved this whole thing by not trading for Burrows, or sending down Niemi or doing any of a large number of things you could do to keep yourself under the cap.

Until today I was under the cap, so really if you want to fire me for being over the cap, then ultimately that's your choice.

... and instead you continue to be in denial. You weren't under the cap until today. You were over and only got away with it because nobody was checking cap numbers every day. You even posted your own cap numbers showing you were over before Brewer's injury. You posted them yourself. And yet you continue to insist that this is all Adam's fault for giving you bad advice on getting under the cap. Do your own fucking work.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Like I said for the EIGHTH time, I thought being at $60.6M meant I was under the cap.

[CapsGM]

Now seriously, how do I cause a scene? This thread was strictly obviously me not understand how this cap situation was shaping down. Nowhere did there need to be 4 other GM's posting in this. I don't walk around thinking the league rules don't apply to me, I was under the assumption I was under the league rules, and judging by our conversations you were as well.

You may be frustrated and pissed off, and as am I. I had to give away Pahlsson because of technicalities, had to have Hemsky a higher contract because of another technicality. Then, I get a suspension to one of my players for one freaking game, and all hell breaks loose. Now have to get rid of somebody else for free because I'm over the cap for one single game.

Until today I was under the cap, so really if you want to fire me for being over the cap, then ultimately that's your choice.

I posted your numbers and told you three times that you've been over the cap since before the Burrows trade before you realized I was right. This issue could have been resolved here. Do you know how frustrated and pissed off it feels to be right for six hours while nobody is listening?

Bitching about the suspension policy that has been in place all season and the Hemsky thing = causing a scene. You lost Pahlsson because you were over the cap. You'll be over the cap whether or not Brewer is suspended too, unless you do something about it. If you lose assets due to bad money management, it's your fault and not a "technicality". I gave up a 2010 first round pick for free in order to remain under the cap when the league started. That's a Connor Brickley or a Patrik Nemeth type player. But not once have I complained about it.

When someone's over the cap by my Excel spreadsheet, I check the team's numbers again manually before sending them to Adam. Then he runs them again himself. Yesterday we had a discussion that lasted parts of three hours as to why our numbers for you weren't matching up. We must have calculated your payroll five times each just yesterday alone.

Nobody's out to get you. Sebastien is over the cap too and I double checked his numbers to make sure. But he didn't go apeshit about it. It's so much easier when everyone is below the cap. Less work for Adam and Tommy as there is less player activity to deal with. Less work for me too since I don't have to second guess my own numbers. But when we say you're over the cap, you're over the cap. If you disagree, I'll find the discrepancy for you (and I did).

Most of us here are more than willing to admit a mistake immediately if we make one. You should start developing that quality too.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I'm not disputing with you that you are incorrect. At the time I thought so, yes.

[Montreal Canadiens]

60578667

so I'm $578,667 over the cap, demoting Joensuu at $1M, and calling up Skokan ($310K) in his place should bring me under the cap for tonight's game?

Yes?

[Jets GM]

Thought min contract was 400k?

[Montreal Canadiens]

^yeah you are correct.

Even so, I'm cutting $600K and I need to cut $578,667?

*Actually I think I only need to cut $494,617 as that $578,667 was with Weber on my team. If that's the case, I'll call up Nattinen instead but I'll wait for someone more qualified to confirm these numbers.

[CapsGM]

Ok, here you go,

HEMSKY, ALES [lw] $6,750,000
BOYLE, DAN [d] $6,666,667
SAVARD, MARC [c] $5,900,000
KOSTITSYN, ANDREI [rw] $5,500,000
BACKES, DAVID [c] $4,575,000
LEGWAND, DAVID [lw] $4,500,000
MALONE, RYAN [rw] $2,250,000
BREWER, ERIC [d] $4,000,000
TYUTIN, FEDOR [d] $3,150,000
PRICE, CAREY [g] $3,050,000
SBISA, LUCA [d] $2,218,750
BERGLUND, PATRIK [c] $1,006,250
TANGRADI, ERIC [lw] $1,868,750
COLAIACOVO, CARLO [d] $1,700,000
NIEMI, ANTTI [g] $1,200,000
CHIPCHURA, KYLE [c] $1,150,000
JOENSUU, JESSE [rw] $1,000,000
BJUGSTAD, NICK [rw] $450,000
NEMETH, PATRIK [d] $525,000
GAGNER, SAM [c] $1,000,000
LAPIERRE, MAX [rw] $950,000
KREPS, KAMIL [lw] $214,500
BURROWS, ALEX [rw] $660,000
BIEGA, DANNY [D] $0
VALACH, JURAJ [d] $410,000
NOKELAINEN, PETTERI [rw] $0

$60,694,917

+400,000 Biega
+400,000 Nokelainen
------------------
61,294,917
-800,000 (LTIR)
------------------
60,694,917.

$60,694,917 - Joensuu $1,000,000 + Skokan $400,000 = $60,094,917.

Can someone else do a double check for me? At work right now.

Where did you get $60,578,667?

[Montreal Canadiens]

That was your number in the first post back in page 1.

Injured players still count against the cap. Your CAP LIMIT is what goes up. So, 60,000,000 + 800,000 = 60,800,000.

Your salaries = 61,294,917.

You = over cap.

$61,294,917 is my cap number.

if I'm cutting $600K, that would bring me under the $60.8M I'm allotted to be at. $60,694,917.

[CapsGM]

That was your number in the first post back in page 1.

Injured players still count against the cap. Your CAP LIMIT is what goes up. So, 60,000,000 + 800,000 = 60,800,000.

Your salaries = 61,294,917.

You = over cap.

$61,294,917 is my cap number.

if I'm cutting $600K, that would bring me under the $60.8M I'm allotted to be at. $60,694,917.

$61,494,917.

So you were over by $694,917 before Joensuu and Skokan.

Before you tell me I'm wrong and Adam's right again, look at the numbers. Figure it out yourself. $60,694,917 + $800,000 = $61,494,917.

[CapsGM]

So yeah, $94K over. But don't go into tantrum mode yet though. Demote Nemeth ($525K, ELC so waiver ineligible) and call up another $400K defenseman and you're good for now.

[Montreal Canadiens]

yeah i have $60,894,917 as well.

I guess Niemi is gonna have to shine up his starting goalie skates.

EDIT - Nvm, waived Niemi, Price can re-stake his net.

[Montreal Canadiens]

No idea where to put this, but it's legal to have a D play a F position?

[Virtual Jarmo]

No idea where to put this, but it's legal to have a D play a F position?

Only if his alternate position is a forward spot. (Ian White, Brian Lashoff, Paul BizNasty Bissonnette, Brent Burns - probably others)

[Montreal Canadiens]

No idea where to put this, but it's legal to have a D play a F position?

Only if his alternate position is a forward spot.

It's not, and well I should clarify, a d-man is playing a F spot on SH.

[Penguin]

Karl Alzner plays F on the PK.

[Montreal Canadiens]

^Yes, that's what I'm getting at lol. Wondering if it's legal (since you'd never see it in real life) and It's quite the advantage with his close to 90 FA.

[Bruins_GM]

It's legal in-game, and it's a rarity in real-life but it happens.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Karl Alzner plays F on the PK.

Not sure how to handle this. Generally teams don't put three D on the PK, but I don't see why it wouldn't be a real life option. I allow forwards on the point on the PP. There's no rule about having defensemen play forward on the PK.

[Jets GM]

Karl Alzner plays F on the PK.

Not sure how to handle this. Generally teams don't put three D on the PK, but I don't see why it wouldn't be a real life option. I allow forwards on the point on the PP. There's no rule about having defensemen play forward on the PK.

I recall asking you about this and you saying it wasn't allowed, citing the fact it rarely happens (if ever) in the NHL. It be quite adventitious for teams with a d-men that has a good FA rating; it's useless unless they are allowed to play F on the PK.

I'm indifferent, but if we are allowed I would start using an extra D on my 2nd unit.

[GM Office Q]

I don't see how this is different than having a forward playing defense on the powerplay. Alzner fits under the cap, so why not? Smart move by WSH imo.

[CapsGM]

I've seen other teams do this too. Some of them have already posted in this thread (hint: teams with defensemen with high FA ratings).

I'll take Alzner off the PK if enough people are butthurt about it.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Karl Alzner plays F on the PK.

Not sure how to handle this. Generally teams don't put three D on the PK, but I don't see why it wouldn't be a real life option. I allow forwards on the point on the PP. There's no rule about having defensemen play forward on the PK.

I recall asking you about this and you saying it wasn't allowed, citing the fact it rarely happens (if ever) in the NHL. It be quite adventitious for teams with a d-men that has a good FA rating; it's useless unless they are allowed to play F on the PK.

I don't recall this conversation. But, who knows.

[Jets GM]

I've seen other teams do this too. Some of them have already posted in this thread (hint: teams with defensemen with high FA ratings).

I'll take Alzner off the PK if enough people are butthurt about it.

I was doing it last season for awhile, until I mentioned it to Adam before stopping after he said it wasn't allowed.

Fowler has 89 FA, a top unit Fowler - Seguin | Nemeth - Murray would be awesome but I have no problem with it not being legal. Whatever the league decides is cool.

edit: the convo was on MSN a long time ago.

[Bruins_GM]

I've seen other teams do this too. Some of them have already posted in this thread (hint: teams with defensemen with high FA ratings).

I'll take Alzner off the PK if enough people are butthurt about it.

I'll keep mine on until it's written in the rulebook.

[Virtual Jarmo]

I'll admit that a defenseman taking a faceoff would only happen on a 5 on 3 when the center gets kicked out of the dot, but, whatever.

Frankly, I'm almost past the point of caring about trivial shit like this. It's enough trying to keep my passion about the important things. Shit like this seems unbelievably minor.

[Virtual Jarmo]

This thread needs something to make Tim happy:

[Montreal Canadiens]

I didnt mean to start a battle I was honestly just curious. It is an advantage yes, but i couldn't see it written anywhere in the rulebook so thats why i asked.

[Parker]

I seem to remember this coming up a while ago because I wanted to do it myself. The verdict at the time was that the rule was to be followed to the letter. F on D for powerplay and no other exceptions. Not that I care either way, but that was the ruling I'd been abiding by until now.

[Penguin]

With everything we do to add realism to the league, I think we shouldn't allow it!

[TorontoGM]

I've seen coaches try using 2 or even 3 forwards on a 5 on 3 but a defencemen playing foward? I guess I could use Strait as a forward.

[Virtual Jarmo]

I seem to remember this coming up a while ago because I wanted to do it myself. The verdict at the time was that the rule was to be followed to the letter. F on D for powerplay and no other exceptions. Not that I care either way, but that was the ruling I'd been abiding by until now.

It probably did come up and that probably was the ruling.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Poll on this subject posted in GM Memos. Vote if you want to be heard.

[CapsGM]

If we're nitpicking at it, now might be a good time to point out that five teams are violating the official rule 3.2 regarding natural/alternate positions at even strength.

[Calgary.Flames]

Start naming names...

[Montreal Canadiens]

^yup, black list 'em. I pointed out BOS that kept playing people out of position.

[CapsGM]

FLA, MIN, NJD, NYR, OTT.

[Montreal Canadiens]

Rangers....I would expect better. No wonder why NJ is on a roll.........

[TorontoGM]

Might as well get a Salary Cap blacklist going too...

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

FLA, MIN, NJD, NYR, OTT.

What? Ah, crap. Thanks for that catch.