Poll question for goaltending

[Steve]

Here is the proposal for goaltending in the league; we're going to ask you to vote on 1 of the 2 options presented:

1. Each team is allowed a maximum of 9 goaltenders on their team at any one time (doesn't include any goalie on IR+) with no more than 4 that are pro goalies.

2. Each team is allowed to have a maximum of 4 goalies (doesn't include any goalie on IR+) on their Yahoo roster at any one time.

A simple majority will carry the vote.

Feel free to discuss why you believe option 1 or option 2 should be implemented.

[Anth]

I think Steve means PLUS those on IR.

Ex, if you have an injured goalie, you can add a 10th

[Steve]

Thanks for the clarification Anth. Edits have been made.

[Ryan]

We need a 3rd option - no change.

I don't believe we should play Bettman to evoke parity when none is warranted. Most of us have been in this league for a full decade (!) and can/have make deals to secure the goalie we need. If some GM's haven't, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Are we next going to scrap FOW to make centres less valuable too? There are so few goalies in the NHL and we need that upper tier of positional rarity to work to get for our teams. Yes, many have over-paid to secure this, but that's the cost of adding a top tier/highly utilized/farm goalie. You pay more for McDavid in a trade compared to someone like Pavel Zacha (only example players) because he is a better player and will produce more for you. It's the cost.

We should not be in the game of altering positional value for this reason. It's the truth in the NHL and it's the truth in the GMHL. If you want to go far with a goalie to carry you there, you have to pay for it. Many, many, many of us have done that over the past 10 years.

I can't vote for either of these options, and choose no change. Happy to discuss further.

[slingblade44]

Personal I also perfer the system we had compared to the proposed options... but im pretty easy going

[Stu]

A few questions about this poll:

- when would these cuts need to be implemented by???
- with the potential lost roster spots for goalies, will these be added somewhere else or just removed altogether?

I personally don’t want to see any changes to how the league is run and if there is some kind of change I don’t want to just drop a player outright without trying to obtain any kind of asset beck in return through a possible trade.

Simply put if GMs want a goalie, trade for one. Sure you’ll have to trade away some assets but it is possible. It’s all in how you manage your team isn’t it??

[hhorsman]

I do agree with Ryan in that their should be a third option for this vote.There may be a greater amount of GM’s that feel no change is needed.Just my humble opinion.

[Steve]

Apr 24, 2022 7:41:52 GMT -5 Stu said:

A few questions about this poll:

- when would these cuts need to be implemented by???
- with the potential lost roster spots for goalies, will these be added somewhere else or just removed altogether?

I personally don’t want to see any changes to how the league is run and if there is some kind of change I don’t want to just drop a player outright without trying to obtain any kind of asset beck in return through a possible trade.

Simply put if GMs want a goalie, trade for one. Sure you’ll have to trade away some assets but it is possible. It’s all in how you manage your team isn’t it??

The idea behind this initiative is to make a few more goalies available to all GMs. It has been a fairly common complaint over the past few years that goalies have become increasingly difficult to add to your team. If anything, farm goalies are becoming an even rarer commodity. Goalies are a finite resource and all GMs should have an opportunity to find goalies on the free agent wire and as an addition to your farm.

As for when the cuts will be made, that hasn't been determined yet, but we will let you know. If you have to drop a goalie to be compliant with any updated rules, you can of course add in another player to your pro team or farm team depending on where you have space available. If anything, if you have lots of goalies, you can certainly trade them and there will be definitely ample time to do so. Every GM will be able to carry up to 47 players on their roster with up to 27 of those players being pro.

If you choose option 1, you can have 9 goalies total on your team, but no more than 4 that are pro.

If you choose option 2, you can have as many goalies as you want on your team, but no more than 4 can appear be on your Yahoo roster at any given time. This could be 4 pro goalies, but that wouldn't allow you to bring up any farm goalies, so in order to do so, you would have to drop one of your pro goalies from your team.

Now I do know that some GMs here don't want any changes whatsoever come hell or highwater. If you look back on the history of this league, we've made a number of changes to the league; overall, it is a better league because of the changes that were implemented. It is the same thing here, we're trying to do what is in the best interest of the majority of GMs, so yes, it will impact a very few teams negatively, but overall, more goalies should be available for everyone. The cost to those impacted negatively will only be minor, but you have to understand that we're attempting to help the league as a whole. Some of you may disagree and that is fine. I'd only ask that you try to weigh the impact in a fair and impartial manner and consider what would it really do to your team if you had to make a few goalie cuts.

[Steve]

Apr 24, 2022 12:50:46 GMT -5 hhorsman said:

I do agree with Ryan in that their should be a third option for this vote.There may be a greater amount of GM’s that feel no change is needed.Just my humble opinion.

For those who don't want any changes to the goalies whatsoever, you can certainly express your opinion here. Some of you have already done so, both here and privately through WhatsApp. We welcome your comments.

[Steve]

Apr 24, 2022 15:58:05 GMT -5 Ryan said:

This is a "General Managers Hockey League" so leave it as such. If you are suggesting changes, then those changes are only suggestions and up to the general body to decide; "no change" should always be an option in voting, otherwise there are some who don't have a voice. I will not vote on this poll for this reason. I don't agree with any of the options "suggested".

Not any one of us can be convinced that being forced to flat out drop a minimum of 3 goalies is a viable option. We have spent assets to acquire these and cannot be expected to flat out drop any number of players with no voting option that would provide an alternative. There are middle grounds to be found and I have suggested these in private WhatsAPP messages with co-commissioners.

I would rather be the only single person to vote for "no change" and have my vote allocated there, then to submit and be forced to drop a minimum of 3 and maximum of 8 (!) goalies depending on this vote's outcome. I am absolutely more than happy to follow the outcome of a fair and balanced vote that is inclusive of all options that represent the general body. If my vote loses, then my vote loses and I move on. However, I refuse to submit in an unfair forum.

I'm not sure how you get to having to drop 8 goalies. With Sorokin graduating, in option 1, you have to drop 1 pro. In option 2, if you drop 1 pro goalie, then you can't call up any farm goalies unless a pro goalie gets injured or you drop another pro goalie. You can keep as many goalie on the farm that you want to.

If you want to present your dissenting opinion, then please do; however, let's stick to the facts here. There are no circumstances whatsoever where you have to drop 8 goalies.

It should be obvious to every one why there was no other option available, like no change; the simple answer is that we feel this is an important enough issue that some change has to occur.

[Deleted]

Hey guys in regards to the post and response above, I don't want to stir the pot anymore, but 6 of 14 GM's (43%) in this league have already mentioned their preference on ProBoard posts that the goalie rules for the league should remain (not sure of what other comments/discussions have been made on WhatsApp privately) the same as they have been over the past several years. If over a 3rd of the league has provided this opinion already should it not be fair to have this option considered?

[Steve]

For those GMs who don't like that they didn't get a chance for no change in this vote, ask yourself if your answer is in the best interest of your team or the league? You should also seriously consider the impact that any change will have to your team - I would suggest that it would be minimal.

Shouldn't there be more than just a few goalies available as free agents? I think there should.

Right now, there are 3 available free agent goalies: Anderson, who is injured; Hammond, and Domingue who's played exactly 1 game so far this year (2nd start is today).

[Deleted]

I understand the governing body wants to change the goalie rules for the betterment of the league, but in society when propositions are on the ballot to vote on, there is always an option to have no change. We all pay a league fee, so everyone should be able to have a vote.

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2022 16:25:46 GMT -5 @andrew said:

Hey guys in regards to the post and response above, I don't want to stir the pot anymore, but 6 of 14 GM's (43%) in this league have already mentioned their preference on ProBoard posts that the goalie rules for the league should remain (not sure of what other comments/discussions have been made on WhatsApp privately) the same as they have been over the past several years. If over a 3rd of the league has provided this opinion already should it not be fair to have this option considered?

Initial post updated.

[Steve]

Apr 24, 2022 18:34:09 GMT -5 @ducksfan1926 said:

I understand the governing body wants to change the goalie rules for the betterment of the league, but in society when propositions are on the ballot to vote on, there is always an option to have no change. We all pay a league fee, so everyone should be able to have a vote.

I hate to break it to you Lucas, but there are no propositions like what they have in California up here in Canada. For the Federal government, whatever the Prime Minister wants pretty much goes exactly as he dictates; it is the same with the Premiers in the provinces.

I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the rules that say all GMs shall vote on every decision made in the GMHL. There are some decisions that the co-commissioners have made that the GMs have simply gone along with. Normally, in almost all circumstances you have had a vote; however, in this case where there are almost no goalies available on the waiver wire, something has to give. We don't particularly want to come in like this heavy handily, but whether you want to acknowledge it or not, this is in the best interest of the league.

I told Ryan a short time ago that we will provide a compromise for any team that is impacted by a change in how many goalies any one team can have.

The compromise is that we will grandfather those teams with more than 9 goalies to the goalies they currently own. This means these teams will not be allowed any more goalie adds or moves whatsoever until they drop to 9 goalies or less, afterwards which they can no longer exceed the maximum of 9 goalies. This includes any trades and acquisitions including drafts until they are at 9 goalies or less. They can certainly trade any of their goaltenders, but they cannot receive a goaltender back until they are at 9 goalies or less.

[Glenn]

Alright.
If we're all clear with the movement can we get ALL the votes in so we can open up for business around here?
I haven't made a trade in so long I'm going through withdrawal and have the fn shakes over here!!
Let's Go!!!

[Steve]

Since all GMs have voted, thank you gents, I locked the poll. By a vote of 11-3, option 1 was selected. To recap, this was the decision:

Each team is allowed a maximum of 9 goaltenders on their team at any one time (doesn't include any goalie on IR+) with no more than 4 that are pro goalies.

I'll elaborate tomorrow on all aspects of this including what exactly the grandfather clause is.

[Steve]

The grandfather clause explained.

All GMs who have more goalies on their rosters than allowed under the new goalie limit, 9 total, of which no more than 4 can be pros, can stay over the goalie limit until they trade away or drop enough goalies to be compliant. The grandfather clause is for the goalies you currently own now and not the number of goalies you have.

You can trade away or drop any of these goalies at any time; however, if you trade a goalie, you cannot have a goalie coming back to your team in a trade until you are at 9 goalies total or under.

Furthermore, while the grandfather clause is in effect for your team, you will not be allowed to pick up another free agent goalie or draft a goalie until you meet the new goalie limit of 9 goalies total or less.

The grandfather clause applies to the following teams: Rangers, Oshawa Rush, Ajax Knights and Quinte Hawks.

[Steve]

With Stu's roster cuts last night, the Rush's goaltending is compliant with the new goalie limit. Therefore, his team no longer falls under the grandfather clause.

[Steve]

With Ryan's release of Holtby and Smith, the Knights goaltending is now compliant. Ajax no longer falls under the goalie grandfather clause.