
What is a bit puzzling with this ruling is you're actually punishing the teams who own these picks...not the offending teams themselves...basically what Luke eluded to. If anything, we should punish these teams for future picks that are still in their possession if they don't own their pick now. Considering how much wheeling and dealing that goes on, it's hard to punish a team for the given year because those picks can could've been moved multiple times.
For having to do something like trade away a future Calder-finalist (Henrique) and Mark Stone for a bunch of spare parts just to meet GP standards when I don't even own my 1st rounder anyway...what would've been my motivation to not make the minimum GP? Knowing this, I probably should've not worried about the rule since I would've gotten away with it essentially and kept two valuable pieces.
That being said, you have this rule for a reason...you should punish teams for not playing enough man games to keep competive balance through the league (and prevent obvious tanking). However, if this is going to be the typical punishment, some teams are going to get away without a scratch if they don't own their pick. There has to be a way to punish the team itself in some fashion or why have the rule at all?
My suggestion would be punish the team if they own their pick and bar them from trading it after it slides. They're basically stuck with the pick at the new position for the upcoming draft. If that can't occur that given year, then role it over to next year and punish the team the next year when they actually possess their own 1st round pick. Let's say I violated the rule and I didn't own my pick this year...just role it to next year when I have my pick and basically bar me from trading it away.