GM For a Day: Fixing the Phoenix

[Gustav 6,417]

Though many VHL members of the past decade remember Chicago as a perennial contender and one of the top teams of the mid-late '70s in the NA conference, a new member today might raise an eyebrow at the roster. In stark contrast to traditional practice, the Phoenix chose not to rebuild and watched as one superstar after another--Jean Pierre Camus, Matty Socks, Lee Xin, Christian Mingle, among others--dropped off the map. Left with only a small handful of players, and an even smaller handful of active ones, the situation in Chicago dipped down in S81 and crashed hard in S82, as a 6-win season and a -232 goal differential proved historically bad--without the usual bad-team mountain of picks to show for it.

 

So, what's a GM to do? The current situation is a lot to deal with, and some smart moves need to be made to turn the team around. Some things have been done, many of which I like--dependable players, and potentially future core members of the roster, are already in the prospect system--but with the roster being as depleted as it is, are those things enough? A GM's worst nightmare is preparing to win inadequately and seeing the team fall in on itself after a couple seasons (I should know), and Chicago must be able to get beyond that and remain competitive without throwing everything else in the garbage.

 

Let's take a look at the roster, shall we? I'd like to work something out.

 

Disclaimer #1: This is simply an opinion piece. Take this with the old radio doctor "this is not legitimate advice" thing.

Disclaimer #2: Please take "Chicago should draft/trade for/sign this player" as "Chicago should draft/trade for/sign a player like this, and here's an example of a thing that could realistically work". I shouldn't need to say this, as someone who has no reason to tamper someone to go to Chicago, but you never know.

 

Active Players On the Roster:

Sunrise van de Schubbekuteveen | S79 | LW | 530 TPA | @Thunfish

Though Schubbekuteveen (which I almost spelled correctly without looking!) put up great numbers this season, there's a big reason why--he was the only active player on the team this season, and one of only two above 300 TPA (with the other being just barely so). Though some may see him as a remnant of the fall of the empire, he was a smart pick in a thin S79 class who has legitimate second-line potential on a competitive team.

 

...and that's it.

 

Active Prospect Pool:

The Board Game Clue On Skates | S82 | C | 466 TPE | @MubbleFubbles

I haven't talked about Clue since my mock, where I mistakenly assumed we were dealing with a first-gen member. Spoiler alert--we're not, and Clue's development has certainly lived up to the agency's reputation. The franchise's top prospect should continue to impress for seasons to come.

 

Bo Johansson | S82 | D | 435 TPE | @Shindigs

Johansson was originally drafted by Toronto, but moved out to Chicago for a solid price this season. Though it's one thing to say that the team giving up what's presumably a lotto pick, and what may end up being #1 overall in S84, was a lot--and you'd be right (and I don't disagree)--it's another to consider the player they got in return, and Johansson could be something special. With the import of a highly active member of the community, the team could have a gem on its hands both on the ice and off.

 

Julia Waffles | S78 | D | 383 TPE | @Edustava

We'll be real here--no, I don't see Waffles amounting to much in the big league. We're too late in her career for any superstar status to be reached, but she is right on the brink of breaking the VHLE TPE cap and there could be a fill-in spot on the roster in the near future.

 

Seymour Butts | S82 | D | 351 TPE | @fonziGG

It's strange to think that Butts is the second-best defender in the pool, but he is--and the veteran presence provided by Fonzi is a nice foil to the newcomer in Shindigs. It will be interesting to see how things work out roster-wise when both hit their primes, but that's a very nice problem to have (if a problem at all), and Chicago should have a future core in place already.

 

Nagy AL | S82 | D | 315 TPE | @bigAL

It's interesting to see the former-commish curse take effect, and that it did--only earning 17 TPE since the draft, Nagy AL seems to be headed toward bust territory. For the purposes of this article, I've assumed that he is out of the picture, but there's still potential for him to get back into it, and that would do nothing but help.

 

Freddy Freeze | S82 | G | 204 TPE | @G_Rush

You may recognize this player's agent as the former agent of Gary Rush, who never cracked 800 TPE but who managed to put up 98 points in S76 (back when 98 points meant something). At the moment, Freeze is a pure welfare player, and therefore likely a career backup, but there's been some higher level of earning in the past and he could prove valuable if that ends up being reached again.

 

ChickenLittle | S82 | G | 185 TPE | @LiningPolecat

I'll admit that I was unfamiliar with both the player and the member when I started looking at the team, but I can at least report now that ChickenLittle is very similar to Freeze. It would be unfair to assume that this player represents the future of the franchise in net, but it's always worth it to explore the possibility.

 

Yes, Chicago has a good amount of prospects! The past draft went well, as did their acquisition of Johansson. That's simply not going to be enough, though--having one forward in the entire pool won't do anything for the team if left alone. What's going to happen next season?

 

 

To-Do List for S83:

 

1. Use that top-of-the-draft status for another forward. Some may disagree with this--yes, there's no goaler in the prospect pool that, at the moment, could be the eventual starter, and Chicago only has one first-rounder in the next couple drafts to deal with (which they could use on top prospect Brandt Fuhr if they want to), but a team needs one goaler and six forwards. Here, I have the Phoenix winning the lotto and going with Scotty Sundin (@fromtheinside), though even if they don't, Igor Molotov isn't far behind in TPE and would be just as good.

 

2. Trade up a few spots and get that goaler at a budget. I originally thought that Chicago could wait until S84 and draft a certain "work of Art", shall we say, with their presumably-early pick, but they no longer have a presumably-early pick. Currently, they own the S82 Chicago 2nd, which will be 17th overall, while netminder Augustus Kennedy (@InstantRockstar) is ranked 10th in the draft class. Goalers are generally not in demand as much as many other positions, and many teams got the player they were looking for with last season's group, so I can see Kennedy falling a bit, especially as the second-ranked goaler in the class. Now, I don't see him falling to 17, but Chicago can realistically give up a 3rd or two (we'll say a 3rd and a 4th) to move up to, say, 13th overall and get someone in net. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say it's the S82 3rd and 4th, because later rounds are a lot of guesswork without an actual mock (speaking of which, spring break is next week!) and I don't want to project players there at the moment.

 

3. Let the sun set. It is my opinion that Chicago should move out Schubbekuteveen as soon as possible. By the time the team has any hope of being good, he's either in his second-last or (even more likely) last season. Currently, he's probably worth about a 2nd--for the sake of good guessing and matching names to picks, let's say that 2nd is 24th overall this season and that the team drafts Svatopluk Puk (@Otaznik), a forward ranked 25th in TPE. 

 

4. Make the team a great place to be, communicate the plan, and believe in it. S83 will not go well. Neither will S84, and, in all likelihood, neither will S85. Every player has a contract that's up before that point, and if the players don't know or don't believe in what's happening, they might be inclined to walk. Chicago simply cannot afford to lose anyone, and it must be understood that some level of pain must be endured before things turn around. Hopefully, everyone left will re-sign eventually--at the moment, that even includes Julia Waffles, who will be gone by the time competitive plans start to take hold but who will have room to run on the team.

 

 

That's all well and good, but assuming everything goes as planned with the above, the team still has 4 forwards, 2 defenders, and 1 goaler who even stand a chance at contributing later on, and practically no picks in S84. What do they do to make that up?

 

 

To-Do List for S84:

 

1. Scout well--REALLY well--and take advantage of a deep S84 class. Two 3rds and a 4th could very well mean three active players in what should better be known as "the S75 recreate class". We'll assume that Chicago hits on one of their picks here, and we'll say that said pick is a 150-TPE defender who earns about 110 TPE per season, both just above what one might expect from a generic 3rd. Deal? Deal. Bigger steals have happened, and I believe a good team can and will do better with a class like this, but we want to make safe estimates and I believe this is perfectly possible with three chances.

 

2. Be patient, and repeat S83's Step 4. I believe that one of my shortcomings as Davos GM was going for it all before the team was truly ready. This is not the time to compete yet! Chicago should not be burning their picks to make things happen in S84. The team will continue to not be good, but the players need to develop and develop well. This season will be fairly quiet.

 

 

So, one gap filled, and we've got a lineup of 4/3/1 by S86.

 

 

To-Do List for S85:

 

1. Go back to forward with that first pick! The Phoenix will again be at the top of the draft class, and this time with a full arsenal of picks at their disposal. We're going to assume here that their 3rd and 4th are inconsequential, but that they hit on their 1st (which we'll assume to be a 350-TPE forward who earns 140 TPE per season) and their early 2nd (which we'll assume to be a 190-TPE defender earning 120 per season). 

 

2. Explore the mid-level FA market. This is something that can be done in S84, too, but it's more realistic to think it would happen in S85. No, a high-end player who goes to free agency to win a championship is not going to move to Chicago in S85--because Chicago is not winning a championship in S85. But it's more than those players who become free agents--often, teams just can't afford to keep everyone, and there are also times when people move because they feel like it. Though no big names will be landing in O'Hare, there exists the possibility that someone around 500-600 TPA, who could be a serviceable player, would find their way to the team with the promise of ice time this season and competition next season. I'm not going to assume this happens, and as such I won't project it, but it's an option that should not be neglected.

 

3. Rinse and repeat on "ya gotta believe". The team probably won't be last place by this point! That's worth celebrating, and I don't mean that sarcastically. If the believing has happened well enough, everyone will be excited for what's to come.

 

 

What's to come, you ask?

 

 

To-Do List for S86:

 

1. Defense in the draft, for once. Butts and Johansson will age at the exact same time, and they could also present questions about cap space down the road. This is not an immediate concern, but having a solid player to back that up will help. As this will also be an early-draft pick, despite the fact that steps were taken in S85, we'll make the same assumption that the player is 350 TPE and earning 140 per season. Since this is the last season I'm going to project, I'm not going to say anything about the other picks.

 

2. Do whatever it takes up front. We'll say for now that Chicago gets one 900-TPE player and one 600-TPE player. Whether that's done completely through trades, or free agency, or a combination of both (I think most realistically, they can at least end up with the 600-TPE player after two seasons of trying in FA, but they'll likely have to buy the 900-TPE player as more established teams still have an edge in the FA market). This puts them at one big buy--hypothetically, a 1st and a 2nd are given up. 

 

 

If all this goes according to plan, Chicago has a fairly young team in S86 that looks like this (with rough TPE estimates):

 

The Board Game Clue on Skates - 926 TPA

S86 buy - 900 TPA

Scotty Sundin - 802 TPA

S86 FA - 600 TPA

Svatopluk Puk - 490 TPA

S85 1st-round draftee - 490 TPA

 

Bo Johansson - 895 TPA

Seymour Butts - 777 TPA

S84 3rd-round draftee - 370 TPA

S86 1st-round draftee - 350 TPA

 

Augustus Kennedy - 618 TPA

Freddy Freeze - 408 TPA

 

...a highly competitive 6-4-2 lineup, with the vast majority of players in their 5th season or earlier, which is perfectly cap-compliant at a cost of $39.5 million.

 

 

Will this happen exactly according to plan? Absolutely not--that would involve a whole lot of luck and a whole lot of skill to pull off. There will be bumps in the road, and it's entirely possible that we won't see Chicago be a good team until S87 or S88. There just aren't enough assets to go around, and it's going to take a long, long time to rebuild. But it's fun to speculate, and it will be a story for the ages if they manage to pull it off just as well as this or better.

 

 

Oh, and I used a spreadsheet for all my projections.

 

HERE IT IS FOR ALL YOU NERDS.

 

 

2,422 words | good for 4 weeks

[BOOM 8,748]

 owe you consultancy pay.

[Spartan 4,403]

frankly you get the GM pay for Chicago lmao

[fromtheinside 1,290]

projected s83 tpe 382....you think think this is a joke to me GUS?!!?

I better be 400+

[rory 1,916]

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

frankly you get the GM pay for Chicago lmao

u think jeff has been riding this without a single thought at all lmao

[Shindigs 1,771]

I also think Gus slightly underestimated just how sweaty I get about TPE earning. The needlessly detailed plan is for Bo to be on a 1006 TPA build by S86, assuming nothing crazy happens IRL. That's hitting the cap on the dot, so if @fromtheinside is also picked up, and also sweats for that TPE. That could potentially make the cap just a wee bit tight.

 

Was a really good read though.

[BOOM 8,748]

With that DEF already, at least I know one team I won't be headed to. Well two, if you include Vancouver. 

[der meister 3,189]

Whew! I really like this deep dive, and as others mentioned, you deserve consultant or GM pay for this one. Excellent, well-researched piece that was fun to read, well organized, and just a genuinely solid piece of media. I can't really find anything that deserves to have points taken away for, as it was thorough and grammatically correct. I honestly can't stress how much I enjoyed reading this, especially with the projection a few years down the road. 10/10 for an excellent job.

[JeffD 648]

We will be absolutely fine. I went through the process of building a team from scratch before, and I'm going through it again.

 

This is a fully intentional rebuild. We were not this bad accidentally.

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

26 minutes ago, JeffD said:

This is a fully intentional rebuild. We were not this bad accidentally.

 

*cough* rule 14.3 of the VHL rule book says you were completely accidentally and certainly not intentionally that bad *cough*

 

14.3 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

 

[Spartan 4,403]

36 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

 

*cough* rule 14.3 of the VHL rule book says you were completely accidentally and certainly not intentionally that bad *cough*

 

14.3 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

 

I think the rule here is actually more oriented towards giving worse players or bots more minutes than better players on the roster with the intention of losing more games. For example a team with a bot backup goalie can only play the minimum 8 backup games, and their starter must play the rest of the 64 games. Playing more than 8 bot starter games is considered in violation of this rule since you have a clearly better goalie on the roster.

 

I don't think it's on the same level to say that a team that just....lost all their players and didn't replace them prior to their retirement with younger players and/or assets is breaking the spirit of competition rule. They're still icing their "best" roster available. That roster just sucks major shit. Being shit is not against the rules lol.

[JeffD 648]

49 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

 

*cough* rule 14.3 of the VHL rule book says you were completely accidentally and certainly not intentionally that bad *cough*

 

14.3 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

 

 

Can't build a less shitty team if all the mid to low tier TPE players are in the VHLE 

 

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

15 minutes ago, JeffD said:

 

Can't build a less shitty team if all the mid to low tier TPE players are in the VHLE 

 

I get your point, although one could also say that this situation is partly of Chicago's own making, as in S79 the Phoenix had/used two picks, in S80 one, in S81 zero, and two in S82... so yeah the players which could help Chicago now, were drafted by other teams, it is not that they do not exist, Chicago chose to trade the draft rights away and is now surprisingly shorthanded... However, I was more referring to your statement that you were not accidentally this bad... your words not mine... that leads to the conclusion that Chicago was bad on purpose... which could be interpreted as tanking...

Edited March 16, 2022 by Daniel Janser

[JeffD 648]

7 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I get your point... I was more referring to your statement that you were not accidentally this bad... your words not mine... that leads to the conclusion that you were bad on purpose...

Bad on purpose, committing to a rebuild, what's the difference. Did I intentionally commit to a rebuild for longer term success? Yes.

 

The league would have a hard time trying to punish us as it is not like we left better players unsigned or played worse players over our better players to try and tank anymore. I built a team with the available assets, didn't go out of my way to get better players by wasting picks on trades, and this was the result. 

 

Sure they could point that rule out to us but what were our options.

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

2 minutes ago, JeffD said:

Bad on purpose, committing to a rebuild, what's the difference. Did I intentionally commit to a rebuild for longer term success? Yes.

 

The league would have a hard time trying to punish us as it is not like we left better players unsigned or played worse players over our better players to try and tank anymore. I built a team with the available assets, didn't go out of my way to get better players by wasting picks on trades, and this was the result. 

 

Sure they could point that rule out to us but what were our options.

I am not advocating for any punishments at all, and I do not mean to attack/offend anyone... all I am saying the wording you used can be misleading... I mean, the Hounds are going through a rebuild cycle as well atm, and during the season I traded five of our best players at the time away for more picks, as this season we did not have any player left and we had to rely on waivers to make up a squad... not surprisingly we were the tail light of the league for pretty much the whole season... so hopefully I can get in this draft the basis for a competitive team together...

 

[DMaximus 1,046]

If you're looking for someone to blame for Chicago's current roster, don't blame the GM.

Blame the league for:

a) expanding too much OR not contracting when needed.

b) creating a new league to reduce the available player pool.

Not sure how you can expect a GM to field a full team when there's not enough players to go around.

 

How many teams didn't have at least a 6-4-1 roster this season? 5?

Sure, Chicago was the most ridiculous of the bunch. But it's a league-wide problem.

[v.2 1,406]

Abolish the E

[Dom 1,445]

2 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

I get your point, although one could also say that this situation is partly of Chicago's own making, as in S79 the Phoenix had/used two picks, in S80 one, in S81 zero, and two in S82... so yeah the players which could help Chicago now, were drafted by other teams, it is not that they do not exist, Chicago chose to trade the draft rights away and is now surprisingly shorthanded... However, I was more referring to your statement that you were not accidentally this bad... your words not mine... that leads to the conclusion that Chicago was bad on purpose... which could be interpreted as tanking...

Well, I personally prefer to buy and put a better team on the ice with the hope of winning the cup than being a middle team forever. When your players are in their prime, of course it hurt the team in the long term when you buy some players but you get a real shot at the cup and your current players know they can truly hope for it. Like it or not, it did work for Chicago, they got a cup by doing it, now it's time to rebuild.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Dom

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

2 hours ago, JeffD said:

Bad on purpose, committing to a rebuild, what's the difference. Did I intentionally commit to a rebuild for longer term success? Yes.

 

The league would have a hard time trying to punish us as it is not like we left better players unsigned or played worse players over our better players to try and tank anymore. I built a team with the available assets, didn't go out of my way to get better players by wasting picks on trades, and this was the result. 

 

Sure they could point that rule out to us but what were our options.

 

There's no Houston in the VHL so building with high picks can work here

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

1 hour ago, DMaximus said:

If you're looking for someone to blame for Chicago's current roster, don't blame the GM.

Blame the league for:

a) expanding too much OR not contracting when needed.

b) creating a new league to reduce the available player pool.

Not sure how you can expect a GM to field a full team when there's not enough players to go around.

 

How many teams didn't have at least a 6-4-1 roster this season? 5?

Sure, Chicago was the most ridiculous of the bunch. But it's a league-wide problem.

I beg to differ, the GM makes the calls on the personnel planning not the league. It is the GM's decision to trade the future away for a push for the cup, not the league's. If you own the job, you own the responsibility.

I must admit I am post-VHLE and never knew the league without it, so I do not know how much in advance GM's knew that the E was coming and could prepare for the impact of the implementation.

I am not sure how quickly one can expand or contract a construct such as the VHL/E/M and constantly going back and forth to me looks like not feasible.... I have seen the chaos with the draft picks disappearing from a draft when the team who owned it, does not exist anymore (or rather has been moved from the M to the E).

 

I am not sure whether the player pool was as depleted as you suggest, as players from 200-350 (i.e. the players which cannot be called up) would probably not make much of an impact as the TPE discrepancy is simply too big (this may or may not change with the hybrid attributes) vs the battlehardened veterans with 800+ TPE. And lets not forget that some players who are in the E now, would not have been in the big show under the old rules as they did not reach the minimum 250 TPE...

 

The Wranglers ran this season a 6-3-2 roster, but we used every penny of our cap, so even if we wanted to hire more players, we simply could not afford to do so.

[fonziGG 1,068]

4 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

I beg to differ, the GM makes the calls on the personnel planning not the league. It is the GM's decision to trade the future away for a push for the cup, not the league's. If you own the job, you own the responsibility.

I completely disagree with this point in regards to selling your future to win a cup. I'm a former VHL GM and there could be some bias since I am currently contracted to Chicago but if you're in contention for a cup, you do everything you possibly can to go out and win that cup. It's the risk you take but you do it. In terms of technicality, Jeff hasn't done anything wrong as a GM for Phoenix. Why wouldn't you want to win a cup? Then you'll have people on the site saying that the GM didn't do enough to win it or put out his potentially best roster? If we're going to talk about opportunity cost, then it's worse in my eyes that he's gunning for the cup and doesn't buy more to shore up a win.

 

It's all about assessing and understanding why GM's do what they do. He sold his future to win what we all hope to win in the VHL. Even if Chicago didn't win, it was worth it because you don't build up to that moment only to hold back. Remember, you own the responsibility to that roster, team and each player individually.

 

Could he have done better in FA during the rebuild? Maybe. But that has no relation on whether or not he sold assets and went for a cup. Just my 2 cents anyways haha

[Devise 4,475]

I don't think there was any intentional tanking in a way that benefits the team. Trading picks away to go for it and then sucking when you can't/don't sell means you've likely given high quality picks away. It's not a case of sitting on the best chance at 1oa a bunch of seasons in a row with tanked picks.

 

Also, as has been brought up in this thread, we are still only a few seasons in to life with a third league. It'll take some time to see accurate player pool results given recreates and the shuffle.

 

Lastly 6-4-1 used to be a full team in the bigs in the old days, some teams are even up against the cap with that type of team build now. Doesn't seem to be a concern yet imo.

[Gustav 6,417]

I made this out of interest in one specific team situation, not to criticize a management style lmao

 

To clarify: I don’t believe that it’s wrong to not sell and to try to compete with what’s there, so long as that’s backed up by solid management thereafter. The seasons ahead will determine whether or not that’s the case—I make no judgment yet. 

[BOOM 8,748]

It's creating forum content. God bless you Gustav.

[Daniel Janser 2,170]

9 hours ago, fonziGG said:

I completely disagree with this point in regards to selling your future to win a cup. I'm a former VHL GM and there could be some bias since I am currently contracted to Chicago but if you're in contention for a cup, you do everything you possibly can to go out and win that cup. It's the risk you take but you do it. In terms of technicality, Jeff hasn't done anything wrong as a GM for Phoenix. Why wouldn't you want to win a cup? Then you'll have people on the site saying that the GM didn't do enough to win it or put out his potentially best roster? If we're going to talk about opportunity cost, then it's worse in my eyes that he's gunning for the cup and doesn't buy more to shore up a win.

 

It's all about assessing and understanding why GM's do what they do. He sold his future to win what we all hope to win in the VHL. Even if Chicago didn't win, it was worth it because you don't build up to that moment only to hold back. Remember, you own the responsibility to that roster, team and each player individually.

 

Could he have done better in FA during the rebuild? Maybe. But that has no relation on whether or not he sold assets and went for a cup. Just my 2 cents anyways haha

I think there is a misunderstanding here, and I apologize if I was not clear in my writing.

 

All I am trying to say is that GM's make the calls in the personnel decisions in their franchise and will have to live with the consequences. If you are gunning for the cup and make all the necessary moves to stack the deck in your favour, that is all fine (and probably the right thing to do). And an experienced GM will know that this has an inherent risk to bite the franchise in the arse for a season or two in the long run, as some of your players will retire and you may not have the assets anymore to acquire the picks for a 'soft' rebuild and therefore get rookies on board while the ageing star players are still around to carry the team/mentor the rookies.

 

While a point can be made that the VHLE somehow taps into the pool of players which normally would have been available/eligible to play in the big show, it is difficult to acquire any new players in the draft if you do not have the picks to do so. 

 

In other words, even if there was an abundance of players available in a draft, without picks this as much use to the respective franchise as an ashtray on a motorbike. 

 

I think it is a bit cheap to push the envelope to the league saying, 'they implemented a new league and therefore our team is starved for hands', when you cannot (or only limited) tap into the available player's pool for lack of picks in the first place.

 

I am not judging @JeffD for the decisions he made. I a have one season of experience as a GM while he has at least ten with Chicago. And I can tap into the almost undepletable pool of new creates and do not have to worry about cap space either. So clearly I am not in a position to judge his decisions regarding the management of Chicago. This was never my intention.

 

I was half jokingly making a remark that maybe the choice of his words 'we were not accidentally bad' was unfortunate and could lead to misunderstanding of his intentions. If that offended anyone, again this was not my intention.