Proposal - Change to Waiver Drafts

[Greg_Nolan]

OC are a no for current season and yes to implement next season.

[Dean Eastman]

Ice Miners vote against it.
I will stick with the minority.

i am happy to see this change for next season.

[Terry Turcotte]

Outlaws vote no! I’ve had to dress players not in nhl to abide by league rules
Great idea for next season

[Randy Houle]

Hooligans vote no. In favor for next season as I have already made adjustments to fill both rosters for the current season.

Thanks
Randy

[Chris_Savard]

First off, let me say that I respect the opinion of everyone who has already posted.

Unlike my Dad, this is not my full-time job and I am certainly not looking for things to fill my plate these days. Outside of the year that he died (and it became clear that either I took over the league or it also died) - this year has been the next most challenging, In this instance and the previous trade dispute, I have tried to propose a fair compromise in the interest of moving forward.

The Marksmen are not wrong in quoting the constitution that major rule changes would have been contemplated at the summer meeting. We have not held a summer meeting since my dad passed in 2008. They used to be held on his back deck in Cornwall - which based on our geographic make-up now, would not be possible. Clearly, a clean-up of the constitution has been on my TO-DO list, but I have not got to it.

The constitution also says...

The League will not have a commissioner, simply a statistician. The owners will govern the League and each Franchise will have one (1) vote on all League issues. Majority always rules. The owners must take an active role and keen interest in League play and operations.

The rules that govern our League operations will be balanced to allow all owners fair and equal opportunity to be successful. The League is designed to be fun and promote healthy hockey debate amongst its members.

In saying that, in absence of the summer meeting - as the Statistician - I have taken the view that 13 GMs can carry any proposal provided that it doesn't drastically change the "competition". In my mind, this proposal does NOT drastically change the competition....it simply provides teams with a deeper bench without elongating the Entry Draft.

Selfishly, I like the idea of not having to process BOTH the drops and the picks each month. I also like the idea of expanding the roster maximum so that I have to reject less trades - thus saving me work.

Ultimately, the league majority will decide and I will be fine with whatever outcome. That said, I believe my proposal was consistent with the spirit of the constitution and I will let the vote play itself out. Majority to decide, unless a GM challenges the proposal as unconstitutional.

Current vote is 8-6. It needs 5 more votes to pass

[Chris_Savard]

XMEN emailed to say....

X-Men vote to pass the proposal

[Matt_McKenzie]

roughnecks in favour

[Josh Graham]

I can see both sides to this argument, but as I'm not going to lose sleep over this, Highlanders vote in favour of the changes.

If we can make life a little simpler for those in charge, then why not.

[Mark Des Cotes]

If it takes a GM to challenge the proposal as unconstitutional then I will do so.

I understand that we no longer have a summer meeting get together, but the principal behind the purpose of the summer meeting remains. Any changes to the constitution have always and should always take place during the offseason so as to not affect play.

Chris, you wrote:

In my mind, this proposal does NOT drastically change the competition....it simply provides teams with a deeper bench without elongating the Entry Draft.

How does that NOT change the competition this season? You are proposing a free pass to any GM who failed to build a proper roster. That WILL affect me and all other GMs who did draft knowing we had to have enough players at all positions to dress Major and Minor teams. We will be losing our advantage when we go up against those GMs who didn't prepare accordingly.

Not to mention anyone who has traded away their waiver drafts prior to this proposal. How is it fair to them? I'm sure much more consideration would have been given if they had known their waiver drafts could be used to acquire a new player without having to drop someone from their roster.

I like the idea for next year. I would also like to discuss it in more detail and fine tune it if needed. I propose we table this idea until next summer when we can give it the proper attention it deserves.

Sorry, Chris. I understand you have a lot on your plate. I don't mean to give you a hard time. I just strongly believe we are going about this the wrong way.

[Chris_Savard]

Wow. Things never get easier. The Arrows, who voted under a similar constitutional proposal to allow the return of the minors, have now challenged this proposal to tweak the roster limits. They are within their rights, even though I can’t follow their inconsistent logic. Before the main proposal can be considered we should first consider the challenge

Please vote below. Do you believe the proposal is unconstitutional as suggested by the Arrows? Yes or No? Majority of 13 will decide. If it is deemed unconstitutional, the proposal will die. If not, the result of the final original vote will prevail.