08-20-2021, 09:11 PMLeafs4ever Wrote:

08-20-2021, 09:02 PMToast Wrote: Would love to hear your thoughts @Leafs4ever

‘Bout what?

Well, I have kept out of it, but I want to be sure this is addressed.

So, let's start at this response. Pretty tone deaf, I think. You're a key part in this decision, considering there are two active owners and it's clear the owners stepped in and we have response from one saying the HO had a different decision and then the owners stepped in and changed that decision. So considering we've heard from one half, would be nice to hear the other half give their explanation as well.

Beyond that, because you keep yourself so detached from the league, you look like an asshole when things like this happen. That's fine, most of us are assholes. I'm just wanting to make a point that being a big part in a very important decision and then washing your hands of it is a pretty bad look to the league and right at a time that we just completed a major recruitment drive and it can be important for them to see a major figure step up and take ownership of a decision they made.

From the people I've talked to already, I've gotten explanations. From this thread, I've gotten explanations. I understand a point of view with this, and I don't argue that the players should be bid on. While that is the letter of the law and should be followed, I understand there was an issue in those letters and so it's being amended. What I take issue with is that a team went from potentially losing 3 1st round picks, to losing a 2nd in a season that isn't able to be traded yet because it's so far away. Over a year away. I think having them lose 1 1st round pick in place of losing 3 1st round picks is reasonable, and so I'd like to know why it's lessened from there.

I also think a $1M cap penalty is low. Realistically, they had three contracts that were late. A send down costs a minimum of 500K against the cap. I think it should be 500K per contract late, because that's what the cost of the contracts effectively are. This one I know was following the late GM Tasks, but I do wonder why it's seen as one specific late task and not three. I can see it, I'm just frustrated with it.

But all together, I mean, it is what it is right. So maybe the true issue here is that a rule was placed last season, S59. It was bungled, there were mistakes. So it got reworked and implemented for S60. And here we are with this. So as an active owner, who is obviously well versed in this rule, how is it that it doesn't become an issue until something like this happens? Why is it that apparently you have almighty rule over everything, but apparently don't bother with rulebook changes but can just override the rulebook whenever you feel like it? How do we have stability? How do we know the rulebook matters at all?

You contributed to setting a precedent that says deadlines don't matter, rules don't matter, and from the responses I've gotten from some about reading the rule it seems like the rule itself didn't even come into play and this is just a poor play at optics. So I want to know why we should keep following the rules, why we should care about the league if the promises made aren't kept and why you have nobody that you have to answer to that can hold you accountable for your actions to ensure that you're following the letter of the law and responding appropriately as an owner?

I think ultimately the frustration for my team, and I'm sure others, is that we followed the rulebook exactly as it's listed and we ultimately get punished for it by not getting what was promised us by the rules. And the punishment that follows for it is half-assed at best from our vantage point. So I'd like an explanation of why this punishment is fair and just to you as somebody who was involved but apparently doesn't want to be in the public eye. If you don't want to be in the public eye, step down, leave it alone and don't get involved. But you are, so I want you to give your voice to it so we can all understand where this went wrong and how it's being fixed.