Questions

[Tony]

Quick question??  If a player is currently on a two-way and is signed to an extension that is a one-way.  Is the two-way still valid until the end of the season?



Thanks,

[Drew]

Quick question??  If a player is currently on a two-way and is signed to an extension that is a one-way.  Is the two-way still valid until the end of the season?



Thanks,

Yes the two way is honoured until that contract expires.

[Gilly]

We allowed to take someone already bought out that's over 2 years and make it one year after the fact?

[Drew]

We allowed to take someone already bought out that's over 2 years and make it one year after the fact?

Not after it has been processed.

[SlackJack]

Posted in the rules, will take affect at the roll-over stage but will not result in a penalty until the first scoring period. Also this is for active goalies so a goalie can be used as an IR replacement.

Does this mean we can exceed 3 active goalies by calling up a 4th goalie as an IR replacement for a defender or forward? Or does it mean that we can call up a goalie as an IR replacement in the case of a goalie injury?

The question opens up an old idea of only being able to fill IR positions with the same classification of player. The idea was shot down but maybe we should stipulate that a goalie can only sub-in in place of another goal tender that is out of action due to injury, thereby maintaining the rule of a maximum of 3 active goalies on the roster at any given time.

[abbyroad]

Does this mean we can exceed 3 active goalies by calling up a 4th goalie as an IR replacement for a defender or forward? Or does it mean that we can call up a goalie as an IR replacement in the case of a goalie injury?

The question opens up an old idea of only being able to fill IR positions with the same classification of player. The idea was shot down but maybe we should stipulate that a goalie can only sub-in in place of another goal tender that is out of action due to injury, thereby maintaining the rule of a maximum of 3 active goalies on the roster at any given time.

 

[Drew]

Does this mean we can exceed 3 active goalies by calling up a 4th goalie as an IR replacement for a defender or forward? Or does it mean that we can call up a goalie as an IR replacement in the case of a goalie injury?

The question opens up an old idea of only being able to fill IR positions with the same classification of player. The idea was shot down but maybe we should stipulate that a goalie can only sub-in in place of another goal tender that is out of action due to injury, thereby maintaining the rule of a maximum of 3 active goalies on the roster at any given time.

I believe I asked this in the rules discussion and there wasn't really discussion around this, currently the rules state 4 active goalies on the roster so if you have a player on IR he is not "active" so you can call up goalie to replace him as long as you don't exceed 4 active goalies. But the way this was, I believe Walt stated is that if the goalie is being brought will most likely not be as good as the player they are replacing. But we can open this back up for discussion as well.

[SlackJack]

Don't think we need further discussion as long as it is clear in the new wording that we will have a maximum of 3 playable goalies at any given time.

[favo_zomg]

I believe I asked this in the rules discussion and there wasn't really discussion around this, currently the rules state 4 active goalies on the roster so if you have a player on IR he is not "active" so you can call up goalie to replace him as long as you don't exceed 4 active goalies. But the way this was, I believe Walt stated is that if the goalie is being brought will most likely not be as good as the player they are replacing. But we can open this back up for discussion as well.

I don't remember saying anything like that. But I do remember mentioning that we should define an active player and an inactive player in the rules so this confusion does not come up. To me, a player on IR should not be considered active. Which is why the rules should say "3 active goalies per team".

[norrya66]

I don't remember saying anything like that. But I do remember mentioning that we should define an active player and an inactive player in the rules so this confusion does not come up. To me, a player on IR should not be considered active. Which is why the rules should say "3 active goalies per team".