View Single Post
04-04-2013, 03:02 PM
PP31's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The BUD 309A17,18,19
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,478
vCash: 500
I don't really care who said what or what the sanctions were actually for... but dictating which years the team loses it's first rounder is total BS. I've said before, but the team should have been given a choice as to what first round pick they were willing to forfeit, ala the NJ Devils re: Cap circumvention.

"Loss of a first round draft choice in either 2013 or 2014 as well as 2016 or 2017. Which ever year the Spitfires elect to use their 1st round pick, they will forfeit a 2nd round pick that year. If no 2nd round pick is available for that particular year, the Spitfires will have no choice but to forfeit their 1st round pick."

Does something like that not seem more logical? The team is still getting hit with the lost draft picks but it's not a crippling as what is currently happening.
Originally Posted by hockeylegend11 View Post
I would agree with both of u there on all opinions Spits should have been given the option of what years to lose the 1st rders
Conditional sanctions? At what point would they have had to opt in or out... Before or after Day was granted exceptional status?

PP31 is offline