My Issue with the VHLM

[Peace 1,532]

1 hour ago, Beaviss said:

Limit draft pick trading to singular seasons (avoids ruining teams for multiple seasons) and promotes less boom bust tactics.

Or just remove pick trading all together.

[Beaviss 4,957]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Or just remove pick trading all together.

 

How would you get good active players off shit teams then?

[Spartan 4,402]

1 minute ago, Beaviss said:

 

How would you get good active players off shit teams then?

high tpe for low tpe player for the future. 1 for 1 to make sure rosters aren't imbalanced in #

Edited October 28, 2021 by Spartan

[BarzalGoat 728]

6 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Not contesting, providing numbers because I was curious about how teams would look this season if players were evenly distributed by position.

 

2.25 C

6.25 W

3.5 D

1.6 G

 

All on a per team basis, so about 8 forwards, 3 or 4 defensemen, 1 goalie. Obviously TPE makes it look a lot different, but the roster sizes are pretty decent. 12-13 players per team.

Does this account for IA? This is also final roster sizes not after draft roster sizes

[Beaviss 4,957]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

high tpe for low tpe player for the future. 1 for 1 to make sure rosters aren't imbalanced in #

 

idk what dream world you are in that you can see that happening

[Spartan 4,402]

Just now, BarzalGoat said:

Does this account for IA? This is also final roster sizes not after draft roster sizes

It counted players on rosters currently, not players eligible to be in the M. Just to see if we redistributed teams today.

[Horcrux 322]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

It counted players on rosters currently, not players eligible to be in the M. Just to see if we redistributed teams today.

and even then my math might be off by 1 or 2 players either way per position

[Spartan 4,402]

Just now, Beaviss said:

 

idk what dream world you are in that you can see that happening

You asked how player trades would work and I responded with a suggestion. I don't have any power to make changes. If Mexico City sucks and a 200 TPE player asks to leave, they could be traded for a 100 TPE player on Yukon who'd be coming back next season.

[Peace 1,532]

10 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

How would you get good active players off shit teams then?

Not by trading picks.

A VHLM team at the dispersal draft with zero picks turns into a team that goes 10-62 throughout the season. 

If a player requests a trade from a shit team, then it should be up to said teams GM to communicate with the player in order to find a new home for him while disregarding any player value at all.

Just my $0.02. 

[BarzalGoat 728]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Not by trading picks.

A VHLM team at the dispersal draft with zero picks turns into a team that goes 10-62 throughout the season. 

If a player requests a trade from a shit team, then it should be up to said teams GM to communicate with the player in order to find a new home for him while disregarding any player value at all.

Just my $0.02. 

But then you're screwing over the players coming back in the trade by taking them from a contender to a team that can't hold onto its best player 

Edited October 28, 2021 by BarzalGoat
wordage

[v.2 1,406]

Abolish the E, fortify the M.

[Horcrux 322]

12 minutes ago, BarzalGoat said:

But then you're screwing over the players coming back in the trade by taking them from a contender to a team that can't hold onto its best player 

to my point. if the league strives for more parity or even rosters maybe that player puts the new team in contention. thats why im trying to say

[Beaviss 4,957]

23 minutes ago, v.2 said:

Abolish the E, fortify the M.

 

[thadthrasher 1,692]

First of all, very well-written article. It's great to see newer members writing quality pieces, being open and honest about what they see. There are certainly difficult aspects to take into consideration with much of what has been said in the article and in responses. One thing that your article made me think of that may be a good idea in the future is something that I came across in the PBE (Pro Baseball Experience). 

 

When I joined the PBE I was given a "rookie mentor" who was available to me to ask questions and seek guidance from. It didn't matter which team I played for, that rookie mentor looked out for me and helped me out. They helped show me how to earn money and TPE for my player, made sure that I knew it was time to update, and helped check some of my work. Of course, as time went on, I didn't need my rookie mentor and I started relying on my GMs more.

 

I'm wondering if this is a system that we should try in the VHLM. We could make a team of first-gen mentors with someone leading the group. When we get new creates on the forum the first-gen mentors would be notified. They would then have the responsibility of assigning that first-gen player to a mentor. The mentor would then have to reach out to the new player, explain who they are and why they are reaching out, and establish a relationship with them. 

 

Now, some may say, "Well, isn't that what VHLM GMs are for?" While this is true, and it was my experience with @Ricer13, and something I did while I was a VHLM GM, it doesn't mean that it should be LIMITED to just VHLM GMs. The first-gen mentor could be one of the very first people who reaches out to the new create and answers any questions asked. The VHLM GM who signs this new player either as a waiver player or through the draft would of course interact with their player more and more as time goes on, but I think everyone here would agree that the first interaction you get when you come to the league is crucial. Many people join, get little to no response from anyone, and leave before their account is even 24-hours old. Imagine what it would be like to be someone who joins something so new and have very few people reach out? It would probably be pretty discouraging. However, if you join the league and within a few minutes/hours you have someone messaging you saying, "Hey, I'm your new friend and mentor and I will help you," you're more likely to stick around and become a productive member of the league.

 

Anyways, all of that to say, well done. 10/10

[JardyB10 4,865]

1 hour ago, Garsh said:

Now whether or not the Commissioners actually take that into account is another thing

To double down on Beav's comment, we truly do not care. In fact, I'd much rather hire someone to the VHL who was more committed to the stated purpose of the VHLM than someone who loaded up on re-creates and high TPE inactives, even if that meant being mediocre but having an active locker room and producing active new members.

 

  

29 minutes ago, v.2 said:

Abolish the E, fortify the M.

The VHLM was still like this when the VHLE didn't exist.

[Horcrux 322]

3 minutes ago, thadthrasher said:

First of all, very well-written article. It's great to see newer members writing quality pieces, being open and honest about what they see. There are certainly difficult aspects to take into consideration with much of what has been said in the article and in responses. One thing that your article made me think of that may be a good idea in the future is something that I came across in the PBE (Pro Baseball Experience). 

 

When I joined the PBE I was given a "rookie mentor" who was available to me to ask questions and seek guidance from. It didn't matter which team I played for, that rookie mentor looked out for me and helped me out. They helped show me how to earn money and TPE for my player, made sure that I knew it was time to update, and helped check some of my work. Of course, as time went on, I didn't need my rookie mentor and I started relying on my GMs more.

 

I'm wondering if this is a system that we should try in the VHLM. We could make a team of first-gen mentors with someone leading the group. When we get new creates on the forum the first-gen mentors would be notified. They would then have the responsibility of assigning that first-gen player to a mentor. The mentor would then have to reach out to the new player, explain who they are and why they are reaching out, and establish a relationship with them. 

 

Now, some may say, "Well, isn't that what VHLM GMs are for?" While this is true, and it was my experience with @Ricer13, and something I did while I was a VHLM GM, it doesn't mean that it should be LIMITED to just VHLM GMs. The first-gen mentor could be one of the very first people who reaches out to the new create and answers any questions asked. The VHLM GM who signs this new player either as a waiver player or through the draft would of course interact with their player more and more as time goes on, but I think everyone here would agree that the first interaction you get when you come to the league is crucial. Many people join, get little to no response from anyone, and leave before their account is even 24-hours old. Imagine what it would be like to be someone who joins something so new and have very few people reach out? It would probably be pretty discouraging. However, if you join the league and within a few minutes/hours you have someone messaging you saying, "Hey, I'm your new friend and mentor and I will help you," you're more likely to stick around and become a productive member of the league.

 

Anyways, all of that to say, well done. 10/10

all of this. I endorse this. make this happen

[Gustav 6,407]

2 hours ago, Garsh said:

The reason I think most of the MGMs are GMing the teams is because they ultimately want to to be a VHL GM.  In theory, one of the ways to prove that you would be good GM material is to win in the M.  Now whether or not the Commissioners actually take that into account is another thing, (I have no idea what they base their decisions on). 

 

Case in point: me being a shit GM but moving up pretty fast anyway because of the locker  room  experience 

 

Love seeing these types of articles and discussions happen, I've mostly spoken my mind on VHLM issues in my last article but it's cool to have new members' perspectives in the conversation as well.

[Horcrux 322]

1 minute ago, GustavMattias said:

 

Case in point: me being a shit GM but moving up pretty fast anyway because of the locker  room  experience 

 

Love seeing these types of articles and discussions happen, I've mostly spoken my mind on VHLM issues in my last article but it's cool to have new members' perspectives in the conversation as well.

you inspired me to write mine

[Ledge 1,131]

4 hours ago, Beaviss said:

Limit draft pick trading to singular seasons (avoids ruining teams for multiple seasons) and promotes less boom bust tactics.

that would have made my life a hell of a lot easier

 

well fuck, if everything here was implemented, my life would be 100 times easier.

[eaglesfan036 4,603]

This is why we need a communist VHLM

 

No draft pick trading, all teams same # of picks, randomized snake draft

[Laine 1,361]

Even as a GM with a really good team this season, I completely agree here. Obviously every GM wants their team to go all the way but at the same time, the user experience is just as important. We've had teams in previous seasons that had only 1-2 players and its tough to sign newer players with the division amongst teams. Usually 3-4 teams run away with the top spots (in our case, Yukon, Ottawa, Minnesota), a few teams struggle all season long (Mississauga, Saskatoon), and a lot of teams are stuck in between (San Diego, Mexico, Miami, Vegas, Philly, Halifax, Houston). I think with some balance, not only would the M be more competitive than ever before, but the user experience would be greatly improved. Of course, this isn't an easy work around as new rules would need discussion from a lot of parties, but I think this article brought that to light and the point used give us a platform to work from. Very well written article, @Horcrux!

[Devise 4,475]

Look....at..all...these beautiful...paragraphs.

 

 

[JardyB10 4,865]

13 minutes ago, Devise said:

Look....at..all...these beautiful...paragraphs.

 

 

She'll be stealing your job(s) in no time!

[Horcrux 322]

4 hours ago, Devise said:

Look....at..all...these beautiful...paragraphs.

 

 

[Horcrux 322]

7 hours ago, Laine said:

Even as a GM with a really good team this season, I completely agree here. Obviously every GM wants their team to go all the way but at the same time, the user experience is just as important. We've had teams in previous seasons that had only 1-2 players and its tough to sign newer players with the division amongst teams. Usually 3-4 teams run away with the top spots (in our case, Yukon, Ottawa, Minnesota), a few teams struggle all season long (Mississauga, Saskatoon), and a lot of teams are stuck in between (San Diego, Mexico, Miami, Vegas, Philly, Halifax, Houston). I think with some balance, not only would the M be more competitive than ever before, but the user experience would be greatly improved. Of course, this isn't an easy work around as new rules would need discussion from a lot of parties, but I think this article brought that to light and the point used give us a platform to work from. Very well written article, @Horcrux!

Thank you for the kind words. 

 

I'm glad as a GM you agreed. I was curious to see what most of the VHLM GMs thought about what I had mentioned.