|
Post by Avs GM on Jul 20, 2013 8:06:03 GMT -5
I would like to open the discussion of allowing a 3rd goalie.
Right now with a 20 team league, we cover all 30 starters (maybe) and then only 10 of the backups.
I find very restrictive in order to negotiate trades that include goalies. As our scoring system is weekly instead of daily, there's little advantage in hoarding starters as they command highter salaries anyways
This proposal wouldn't give an extra roster spot either so somone would be sacrifcing two bench spots to carry 3 goalies
The increase if everyone did so would still be to 60 goalies
I think it would only give us more flexability and see no downside.
|
|
|
Post by Habs GM (Jim) on Jul 20, 2013 8:27:51 GMT -5
Yeah, this was one I wanted to tackle this year as well. We used to have more teams, so the rule made sense.
|
|
Kings Gm
Full Member
TAB Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by Kings Gm on Jul 20, 2013 8:35:06 GMT -5
I'm all for a 3rd goalie, though we're just talking optional not mandatory 3rd goalie right?
|
|
|
Post by Avs GM on Jul 20, 2013 9:20:41 GMT -5
Right, optional.
|
|
|
Post by Blackhawks GM on Jul 21, 2013 11:17:58 GMT -5
I'm in
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Jul 21, 2013 16:53:08 GMT -5
I like it
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Jul 22, 2013 7:41:03 GMT -5
I like that there are only two per team, because it leaves a little in FA for when a teams goalie gets hurt/replaced, etc. This way a teams whole season is not lost due to an injury to 1 player. Goalies are important, and it would handcuff too many teams. A trade is available, but definately not always best option for GM.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay GM on Jul 22, 2013 8:30:20 GMT -5
I agree with Anaheim. I had to change goalies numerous times last year because of injury.
|
|
|
Post by Avs GM on Jul 22, 2013 14:10:14 GMT -5
With a limit of two it means that you "have" to trade a goalie for another goalie in almost every situation or buy one out first.
Allowing a 3rd goalie would be only to allow versatility, I don't figure many people would as you may only play one during a scoring period.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay GM on Jul 22, 2013 15:20:33 GMT -5
Any time a team is "forced" into a trade in the situation you describe above...its a no-win situation.
In an extreme situation...If 15 of the 20 teams have 2 starters each, 5 teams dont have one starter. You can pretty much write off the season.
If you are allowed to have 3, its possible 10 teams might not have one. I know this the most extreme situation but by allowing 3, its quite possible that one team might get left without a starter.
Even if you had one, and he got hurt...you are forced into a trade.
Whats the price in a trade for that one team to acquire a goalie when everyone knows he is in a bind?
|
|
|
Post by Avs GM on Jul 22, 2013 15:31:45 GMT -5
Lets say you have two backups, you can't acquire a starter without having to trade one back. Probably have to buy one out.
Can't promote a rookie without trading or buying one out.
I'm fine either way, all things considered the frustration of trying to workout trades with goalies is worst of all the evils to me and am for a less restrictive option.
Not sure I understand the sense of preserving the FA pool. Sure it sucks when you lose the key member of your team to injury. As we try to emulate the real NHL, you turn to your fellow GMs and prepare to get fleeced.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay GM on Jul 23, 2013 8:13:44 GMT -5
If someone has two backups, they would probably have no issues with buying one out to get a starter. If you have a rookie, its up to you to plan ahead or make a trade.
Seriously though I am fine either way too, just think its a new rule that is designed to save GMs from planning ahead or making tough decisions. Just my two cents.
You mention trying to preserve FA pool. Dont we try to do the same thing with the UFA and RFA rules? With 3 goalies, they can be hoarded at the expense of other teams.
Like I said I am fine either way, just pointing out the cons of this rule.
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Jul 23, 2013 9:30:33 GMT -5
I agree with TBay^
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim GM on Jul 23, 2013 10:02:16 GMT -5
Our league went from 24 teams to 20, not a big change. There are really only 20 good starters in league, and if we make it 3 goalies per team, then the chances that those 20 starters will end up on each of our 20 teams is very unlikely. - and there isnt even 60 goalies in the NHL, there are far more xtra D, and F out in FA to warrant an xtra roster spot before we give it to a Goalie.
It will make goalies even more valuable as teams without will have to pay higher prices to teams with xtra goalies. This will also create crazy free agent prices when two goalies go to market with 5 GMs bidding. This will also create a gap in between the good teams and the bad teams because goalies receive the most Fpoints, and if a team does not have a starter, they cant compete. And if a 1 GM or more have two starters, then the number of teams without starters rises. And why would they trade one, they have a xtra starter in case of injury. So to maintain fair competition in our league we cannot allow this to happen. I've seen it tear leagues down.
I have 2 starters and one has been on my trading block for all of last season and is still there now. I am not asking for anything crazy or another goalie in return, but am willing to take a goalie at the same time.
Its not supposed to be easy for everybody. You need to plan ahead and make tough decisions. That's why its a RealGM league. Its not just about balancing your books and going through the motions. Its about taking chances on players, dealing with injuries, having too many Centres/gpalies and having to trade or release, trading away a favorite player because of too many RFA;s., who do you resign between two expiring contracts??
Sorry for it being long winded, but im trying to make people see that this would be a huge mistake. I would like to have 3 goalies, but not at expense of league.
|
|
|
Post by Penguins GM on Jul 23, 2013 10:22:24 GMT -5
I personally voted for 2 goalies still. Most NHL teams have 2 goalies and 2 in the farm. This is no different....
Plus the structure of fantrax which no one has considered yet. Our pool is set up to set your roster by period. Most of the time your starting goalie will be in no matter what. A 3rd goalie is pointless.
I just trade kipper and a pick for nothing. But it's a sacrifice I had to make, I will look to pick up a 2nd goalie. And he will likely sit on the bench all year.
3 goalies are not needed and can create hoarding.
|
|