Should we increase the GP for farm eligible goalies?

[Steve]

Andrew approached me tonight and said that he thought that our current rule that says that goalies lose their farm team eligibility the season after they have played more than 50 games is to low. Frankly, I agreed with him so I discussed it with Mike and Ryan.

As always, we'll put it to a vote. Please note that if implemented, this change in farm team eligibility for goalies would only go into effect beginning with the 2021-2022 season.

[Deleted]

I voted yes, as expected, but why would this rule change not take into effect in the 2020/2021 season?

[Anth]

I vote to move goalie farm status to 75 GP. Good suggestion Andrew. Currently, we're at 50 GP farm eligibility for goalies & 100 GP for skaters; a 2:1 ratio or 50% relativity rate for goalie farm status vs skaters.

I pose the question "Is a goalie really a bona-fide pro after 50 appearances, but a skater needs double that to achieve the same status"? I say definitely not. Rather, I think 100 GP is perfect for Skaters, so propping goalies farm status up a bit is a solid move.

Now do i think goalies need more time to develop / get an opportunity than skaters? Absolutely! However, that's more reflective in real life days elapsed, vs. NHL games elapsed.

In other words, strong goalie prospects may not get opportunities til their mid-20's, while strong skaters may crack camp up to half a decade earlier. However, that doesn't mean actual nhl games played require that much of a gap between Skaters & netminders to achieve pro status.

Hence moving goalies to 75% of skaters' 100 games to prove themselves (aka 75 games) seems more appropriate than just 50% of appearances.....especially since many of a young goaltenders 1st lot of appearances are in relief; & don't rack up many minutes (vs skaters)

[Anth]

May 30, 2020 17:59:22 GMT -5 @andrew said:

I voted yes, as expected, but why would this rule change not take into effect in the 2020/2021 season?

Because GMs shouldn't be SOL if a new rule puts them at an immediate disadvantage, especially if they may have cautiously planned for years to reach their current status.

1 full season & 2 offseasons, gives all GMs plenty of time to fairly plan their rosters to adapt to the new rule.

Ex. Maybe last summer a GM felt obligated to draft a goalie over a skater they liked even more, simply because they knew a couple of their farm goalies were graduating to pro in a year.

Meanwhile, if they knew that a new rule meant they wouldn't have to relinquish farm goalie status so quickly, they'd have instead drafted that skater they wanted more & opted to figure out a goalie pipeline fix via some other means over the course of the next full year.

[Steve]

Thanks Anth. That does sum it up nicely. Besides, at one point, we decided that perhaps it is best to wait an additional year to implement rule changes, unless there was real pressing need to do it now. Some changes, like increasing the number of farm players benefit everyone equally, whereas, like Anth pointed out, delaying a change gives all GMs time to adjust for the change.

[Ryan]

Voted yes; good one to bring up Andrew. Adding an extra 50% to account for blowout relief and injury appearances is reasonable

[Deleted]

Hey guys maybe I am completely wrong on this but have we not made previous league votes in the summer/off season (technically we are still in the 2019/2020 season) and enacted these revisions in the upcoming season? In addition, this rule change is a clear benefit to all GM's equally as it is common sense that farm goalies (as well as defencemen) take longer to develop then skaters/forwards etc. From my recollection examples on the above are the following:

1. Roster freeze vote in April 2020 and enforced in the 2019/2020 (maybe not the best example in comparison to others referenced below).
2. Vote to modify the Yahoo playoff format (i.e. starting the playoffs a week early) in August 2017 which was approved and utilized in the 2017/2018 season.
3. Vote to modify the Draft Lottery process in August 2016 which was approved and utilized in the 2017 draft.
4. Vote to modify IR+ requirements in August 2015 which was not approved, however, if approved would have been utilized in the 2015/2016 season.
5. Vote to keep SO in April 2015 which was ultimately approved, however, if not approved would have been utilized for the 2015/2016 season.
6. Vote to remove GWG for FOW in April 2015 which resulted in GWG being removed and replaced with FOW for the 2015/2016 season.
7. Vote to stream farm players in February 2015 which resulted in a cap for the 2015/2016 season.
8. Other examples may be available prior to my entry into this fantasy league.

Once again maybe the above is not completely accurate (however from memory and pulling up previous years stats I believe it is) would this not establish a precedence for this vote to take in affect for the 2020/2021 season. In addition, Items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 would have definite impacts to a how a GM manages his fantasy team in this league compared to this vote.

I would also like to add that this proposal has been mentioned by myself as well as other GM's over the past few years and is only being voted on now.

Anyways I will ask that the Commissioners review the above and modify this vote to commence for the 2020/2021 season as all this information is readily available on the Proboards site.

Thanks,

[Steve]

You are correct in saying that previously we implemented votes that took place the very next season. However, as a league, we always try and to keep and do things that are in the best interest of all GMs in the league. You should consider this league to be a maturing entity that changes with the times, so if it means adapting changes slowly where everyone can plan in advance what they may consider doing in response to a change, then so be it.

I don't remember exactly when the co-commissioners decided that we should implement most, if not all changes. We decided it was best to implement changes not in the upcoming season, but in the second following year. This eliminates any perceived conflicts of interest and gives all GMs the time to plan what to do with their team.

As for your examples below, number 1 had to answered right away as it affected the league right away. When a GM strongly believes an issue needs addressing and it immediately affects what is occurring in the league, then we have no choice but to take the pulse of the league and implement the results of the vote immediately.

As for examples 2 to 7, they pretty much affected all teams equally. You can make an argument that swapping GWG for FOW favoured some teams over others, but GWG as a category is a joke and FOW is relatively easy to draft for, trade for, or pick up a free agent for.

I honestly don't remember any serious talk in previous years about changing the number of GP for farm eligible goalies, but I may have just forgotten. If we did, we should have voted on it, but I don't see anything in the polls folder about changing the GP for farm eligible goaltenders.

As a rule of thumb, I would say that if a change in the rules only affects a small number of teams, you will not see the change implemented until the second following season. If you care to look at the current rosters, there are only a few teams that would benefit if the GP for farm eligible goalies was increased next season. No GM should suddenly gain an advantage over the rest of the league when it means a goalie, who is at a minimum splitting starts with the incumbent, suddenly finds that goaltender to be farm eligible for another season. You can call it luck of the draw, but as commissioners, our goal is to level the playing field for everyone and not put any team at a disadvantage over any other team.

If the vote to increase the number of GP for farm eligible goalies is carried, it will not be implemented until the 2021-22 season.

[Deleted]

So based on the response provided above (and not to be difficult) but I would suggest that maybe this vote should be separated into two sections: one (1) vote to determine the length/games played status for farm goalies as well as when this rule change (if approved) would commence. I believe this would be the best approach as previous rule revisions (i.e. the majority) have been enacted in the upcoming season while others have been in the following year (i.e. 2 years).

From my understanding of the league rules/requirements all changes are to be voted on by GM's so everyone has a say/input on such revisions to the league format as every GM will be affected differently based on team dynamics etc.

Thanks

[Stu]

This should be a double vote topic.

Fist vote should be "Should the GP for goalies to be farm eligible be increased."

Second vote should be "If so, what year should this take place"

The way this vote is worded is very twisted and handcuffs the situation.

I did vote yes to the increase but I vote no to the year which unfortunately doesn't get a vote.

***Maybe it shouldn't be games played for farm goalies but rather minutes played??? Not sure if this was ever discussed so I'll toss this out there***

-Stu

[Steve]

The three co-commissioners discussed when to implement this change, if carried, and all three of us are 100% behind waiting an extra year to implement this change. Like I've stressed many, many times before, I look to even the playing field as much as possible; all 3 of us decided that it was in the best interests of the league to word it exactly as stated.

Bottom line, no GM is going to get an extra benefit by having a farm eligible goalie available to them for an extra year, especially if that goalie is a starter and potentially a star in the NHL. I only had a quick look, but I believe that only 3 teams would benefit so this change in the rules certainly doesn't benefit every team equally. This is a money league gentlemen, so no one is going to be handed a distinct advantage over the rest of the GMs in this league.

If there is even a perceived conflict of interest in any proposed change, then we, the commissioners, will do whatever we can to mitigate any advantage a GM will have over his fellow GMs.

You got your vote and the change you wanted. I have to say this is a great recommendation, but you're going to have to wait until 2021-22 before it is implemented.

We appreciate your passion on the matter, but we're not changing the year that the change will come about.

[Paul]

All my Farm goalies have no games or less than 5 starts (except Sparks but who knows if he plays again), so 50 games is a long ways away for me and 75 even farther. I vote to leave it at 50.

[Whalers]

Just Barely skimming over things here and I was thinking that Andrew is right that this should be implemented for next season 20-21 since we are in the current season now. Its a less restrictive rule so it only helps everyone. Only if its more restrictive it should be delayed a year to allow gm’s to adjust and make a plan.

[Anth]

@paul.. if your goalies were are all @ 51-60 GP, would this still be your stance?

@mike - as Steve pointed out, only approx 3 of 14 GMs are in position to benefit from an immediate implementation of a 75 game goalie ceiling. Hence, 11 of 14 GMs (or 79% of the league) would be at an unforeseen disadvantage.

**Whereas if we voted on this exact same change after the 2018-19 season (instead of after 2019-20), I'd bet big money that a good # more GMs would have maneuvered their roster around to join these 3 with a different roster mix to also benefit.

We should always approach any elective change in this fashion. That being said, on the flipside, it doesn't mean we can never make a change immediately EX. Moving to 50 max players. Nobody needs to 'plan for a year' for it to be fair for everyone. (psst. Steve! Glenn told me to push for 50 GP to be the next vote! Just kidding..i'll own it lol)

[Whalers]

@ant I see see your point, my point is exactly the same But in the other direction. All the other polls we have had if you look back when we were voting to possibly change rules on pims hits +\- ect, were for the upcoming year so why should it be different now? Steve pointed out that this new rule would affect 4 teams so its an unfair advantage because the goalies are all starters.(Blackwood Hart ect.) So next year will be exactly the same advantave for 3 teams that Own Sheskertin (Steve) Sampsonov (Hazen) and Demko (Mike) the 3 next best goalies in this situation. So it would be no to the 4 teams this year because its unfair but yes to the 3 teams next year? To me its exactly the same. Thats why i think we change it for this season to make it fair for everyone. Also nobody has dropped a goalie, or had to drop a goalie yet that would be affected by this change to begin with so its an even slate.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2020 22:14:33 GMT -5 Anth said:

**Whereas if we voted on this exact same change after the 2018-19 season (instead of after 2019-20), I'd bet big money that a good # more GMs would have maneuvered their roster around to join these 3 with a different roster mix to also benefit.

We should always approach any elective change in this fashion. That being said, on the flipside, it doesn't mean we can never make a change immediately EX. Moving to 50 max players. Nobody needs to 'plan for a year' for it to be fair for everyone. (psst. Steve! Glenn told me to push for 50 GP to be the next vote! Just kidding..i'll own it lol)

Jumping from 50-75 is something I am in favor of if implemented next off season.
However as a GM that likes to make a move every now and then it's an absolute game changer if implemented immediately.
In past seasons when a goalie is graduating you need to make that decision on whether or not to increase the amount of pro goalies you carry meaning you either need to move a goalie or a skater that can change the way your current team is constructed to win certain stats each week.
I also tend to look at everyone's roster way ahead knowing certain teams are going to either have to make that decision this off season and sway that way in trade negotiations. That is taken away. Less fun.
I get that the season was lost and it sucks!! But it was lost and games played are just that games played so they count.
I have Andrei Svechnikov who will graduate to pro this year and would love to have had him maintain his farm eligibility for another season but turns out the 2019-20 season games counted so he's graduating from the farm now. Now I also realize it's a skater vs goalie talk here but those are the chances ya take and changing this now takes away those chances. Those deals and discussions that keep us rolling as a great league.
May sound selfish but I went from "a team of waiver wire garbage" to a playoff spot in a season and half by being aggressive and using the rules a year ahead to my advantage.
Now dealing wide open isn't everyone's approach and I get that as well but to delay needing to make a strategic philosophy or player move when we aren't even certain if/when play will resume is just unnecessary. We have lots of time to get set for next season and full calendar year to implement the GP max.
Just my rounded off 2 cents.

[Steve]

By a vote of 12-2, you have decided that farm eligible goalies shall remain eligible for the farm until they have played more than 75 NHL games.