Possible League Expansion in 2016-17 Season

[Steve]

I would like all GMs to consider a possible expansion of the GMHL by two teams in the 2016-17 season. Please vote and provide your thoughts regarding a possible expansion of our league.

Glenn and I are in favour of expansion, but we certainly don't want to just implement a major change like this without your consent.

I think that 16 teams is a better number of teams to work with. We can split into divisions which will foster competition within these division, which can only add to improve the GMHL.

If we go ahead with this expansion, all teams that miss the playoffs will still retain their 1st round Prospect picks in the draft. The new teams would only pick 7th and 8th overall in this first round and then have the 1st two picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

Most teams would lose only 3 players from their rosters and no more than 4 at the most.

Much of the above is just how we feel an expansion may occur, if that is what you guys want. At the moment, nothing is cast in stone.

Please do comment on why you support expansion or why you believe we should maintain the league as is.

[Deleted]

I voted yes, I think more teams will give more diversity, and just better for the league as a whole. However did you correctly put the 2016-17 season? Isn't that 2 years from now? Perhaps this poll is a little early as some of the GMs who vote now may not be here 2 years from now.

[Moose]

I voted against expansion for many reasons. I'll list a few.

-we have a difficult time keeping the same 14 GMs every year
-I'm not a fan of thinning out the talent pool. I don't see 2 good teams waiting to lace em up on the FA list
-didn't we do a dispersal draft recently because we couldn't handle 16 teams?
-we have a good thing going

[Steve]

Jul 15, 2014 19:12:10 GMT -5 @basalt13 said:

I voted yes, I think more teams will give more diversity, and just better for the league as a whole. However did you correctly put the 2016-17 season? Isn't that 2 years from now? Perhaps this poll is a little early as some of the GMs who vote now may not be here 2 years from now.

We picked 2016-17 on purpose as many GMs are looking forward to making picks in next year's Prospect Draft, which looks to be an outstanding draft year. We wanted to ensure that everyone had a chance to get the players they wanted without having to worry about how an expansion would impact their possible picks.

With a longer lead time, teams can better prepare for the expansion. It wouldn't be just the waiver wire where the teams will be formed. For an expansion to work, there has to be some good to excellent talent available. This would mean the teams already in the league would only be able to protect X amount of players, thereby ensuring enough assets would be available to form two new teams, each of which would have the opportunity to at least be fairly competitive at their start up.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2014 19:12:10 GMT -5 @basalt13 said:

I voted yes, I think more teams will give more diversity, and just better for the league as a whole. However did you correctly put the 2016-17 season? Isn't that 2 years from now? Perhaps this poll is a little early as some of the GMs who vote now may not be here 2 years from now.

This is also dependant upon retaining an overwhelming majority of our current GM lineup.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using proboards

[Stu]

voted no as well. I completely agree with everything Mike said.

[Ryan]

I voted in favour of expansion. I liked the league structure in divisions we had when we were 16 teams (although I think we should have matched up outside our division a bit more). Steve and Glenn invited me into this league saying that the divisions would make things more competitive and I'll buy into that.

[Deleted]

I voted for no. Like they always say, why ruin a great thing

[Deleted]

Steve, Glenn, my only question would be how would this impact our current player rosters? I see you say that we would lose 3-4 players, but how would you like to go about determining this?

My answer is somewhat dependent on this, but I'm strongly leaning towards a yes for the simple fact that it would bring back divisions and foster more depth in the league as a whole. Thanks.

[Deleted]

I voted no because I don't know how many players we would have to give up or the what the whole expansion process would be.

[scoop12ca]

i vote no. thins out the talent too much. leaves no talent in the free agent pool. very difficult to keep 16 owners who are active.

[Steve]

I would envision something like protect 15 Pro as follows: 3C, 3LW, 3RW, 4D and 2G. Protect any 12 Farm eligible players. This is hardly locked in stone as it would be discussed. The poll is more about seeing if there is enough interest in expansion.

Hopefully, GMs here would look at the bigger picture of the whole league and not just on their own teams. IMO, most of you guys could afford to give up your 4th F or 5th D without it impacting your team too negatively.

IF you don't want expansion, then that is certainly fine too. We are not going to implement any majors changes without you guys giving your approval first.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2014 4:52:40 GMT -5 Steve said:

I would envision something like protect 15 Pro as follows: 3C, 3LW, 3RW, 4D and 2G. Protect any 12 Farm eligible players. This is hardly locked in stone as it would be discussed. The poll is more about seeing if there is enough interest in expansion.

Hopefully, GMs here would look at the bigger picture of the whole league and not just on their own teams. IMO, most of you guys could afford to give up your 4th F or 5th D without it impacting your team too negatively.

IF you don't want expansion, then that is certainly fine too. We are not going to implement any majors changes without you guys giving your approval first.

I'm off the same mindset as you, Steve. Despite losing some players potentially, we need to look at this holistically and for the improvement of the league. I'd be willing to undergo expansion under something similar to what was outlined above. Many have expressed concerned of will the GMs be involved, but like all leagues, that is a function of who is selected as the GM. Count my vote as a yes.

[Deleted]

The entire process from roster protection to the exact amount of players each of the new squads would select is entirely dependant upon this discussion. That's why the subject has been tabled now so that we have what amounts to 2 full seasons to fine tune the logistics of an expansion.
That being said when Steve and I first discussed the concept I had suggested that it wasn't something I wanted to force on the GMHL that I wanted everyone to look at it objectively for the continued "awesomeness" of the GMHL and would also be a monumental step forward as it we would need to retain the vast majority of our current ownership to proceed.
I'd also remind you that the few GMs that stepped away were due to personal reasons and none left stating anything negative toward the GMHL.
Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Deleted]

I voted no, only being able to protect 27 of the 47 you have on your roster would be a big cut. Especially with some of the moves there have been this offseason. I think things will run as lot smoother if we just keep it at 14. Like Dale said, its been hard enough having our 14 GMs being active daily in this league.

[Deleted]

I'm just assuming that if its a tie at 7 votes each that things will stay as they are since the "majority" didn't approve of the change??

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2014 9:07:28 GMT -5 @steelcity14 said:

I'm just assuming that if its a tie at 7 votes each that things will stay as they are since the "majority" didn't approve of the change??

Again there is "no change". It was brought up as a topic with a 2 year window to discuss and implement the way we'd go about any expansion details together.

Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Deleted]

I think to many people are basing there decisions on there own personal team, worrying about players they would lose, and not the league as a whole. Remember the logistics of this is not set in stone, right now we are just playing with the idea of increasing the # of teams back to where it was before. (The league was better when we had 16 teams. Also with more teams there is more prize money.

As for different ways to expand. Keep in mind that we will come to set #s of how many players can be saved so it may be more then 27, also I am sure we will put limits on the # of players that can be taken from each team. So 1 or 2 teams are not going to be picked clean, while others don't lose players. I think that may be what some of the better teams are worried about, looking at some rosters, and thinking there is noone a expansion team would want to take from them, so they going to take more from me. I don't think Steve or Glenn would allow that.

So I ask people to reconsider, and think of the league not your team.

[Deleted]

I actually think this is one of the better leagues i've ever been in. Just not a fan of 16 teams cause usually the more teams that get added, the more complicated some things become. Plus if we did expand, we have a whole year to trade big packages to send some of the "bubble" players that we would end up giving up.

I'm just a fan of 14 teams myself. I've been in a couple 16's and things just didn't run very smoothly and usually had to replace anywhere from 1-3 GMs every year...

[Deleted]

My thought was that it would be capped as to just how many players one team could lose. For example if we said 4 was the max any team could lose but no more than say 1 goalie and you lose a G than you couldn't lose say any prospects as well.
Like I said it's a group decision.
If we can expand by 2 and do very little damage to the existing rosters than hey it's win-win. And we could always toy with the idea of a compensation pick added to that years or the next years entry draft. Kinda like MLB does. If yer mega free agent signs elsewhere the team that lost said player gets compensated with draft picks. Again win-win.
Discussion works gentlemen.

Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Deleted]

Either way no matter what the reason 50% is not where we were aiming. Any more than 3-4 against kills the idea so carry one brothers
In closing I'll quote what a wise man told me today "I usually check to see who's been on-line and usually see 13 or 14 guys have been online in the last 24 hours. It's the middle of July!! It sure looks great for the future of the GMHL."
Yes. Yes it does.
Thanks for yer time brothers.


Sent from my Nexus S using proboards

[Deleted]

Since i'm new to the league, i was wondering if it's the same teams that always finishes at the top, and the same teams missing the playoffs every season. If that were the case, then we should shake things up

[Deleted]

I voted no and here is why.

Much like Mike said earlier, we recently dismantled two of the teams and had a dispersal draft. It seems like we have a good group here and I wouldn't want to mess that up.

However,

I do like the fact that you brought this up for 2 years down the road. Obviously anything can change and with a matter like this it would have to be proactive (2 years in advance) I would think eventually we could do it, but right now with replacing as many GMs as we have, I don't think it'd be a good idea.

[Deleted]

And another thing is it's hard to get 14 active teams in one league. If we added another two, it makes it even more tougher

[Ryan]

Well all we really need is two more people as active as we 14 are...they must exist somewhere