SEA/TOR ; S43 off-season

[Devise 4,475]

FA is a bad way to get GMs as well in my opinion. It has elements of tampering, especially if discussions are ongoing prior to that player hitting free agency.

 

There should be some sort of committee overseeing transitions, because, as Mike said, sometimes teams get free pieces added to help their team (Seattle just won a championship, remember) while others have to pay a price.  Ideally, GM transition happens within the same team and doesn't help or hurt the team except from a management perspective.

 

That is a two way street though. The fact is, unless you sign your players to long term extensions and get them committed to the franchise as best you can, you will always have doubts about free agency.

 

If player A plays for Team A, but player A knows his contract is running out and he is debating on looking for a GM position there is nothing wrong with player A looking for a team that is willing to give him that spot in free agency, or before it. If Team A isn't interested in giving up their current GM, they have to know they are risking losing player A. If Team B's GM is known around the league as wanting to step down, there is nothing wrong with Player A contacting Team B's GM regarding the role and the future for free agency. That isn't tampering. Team A was given the opportunity to meet their players needs, they didn't. Player A also was the one to contact Team B's GM, not the other way around, and it wasn't in regards to trying to find a way to get them on their team. It was an inquiry regarding the actual status of the GM role and if player A would be a good fit to take over/fill it. The fact that player A will also be a free agent is simply a benefit for the transaction. 

[gregreg 930]

I agree with devise

[Baozi 1,658]

OR GM and player are two separate entities and none of this matters even.

[Munk 1,298]

OR GM and player are two separate entities and none of this matters even.

Nawt all of us hawe tew persunalities doe

I..i cud try

[Baozi 1,658]

If a Munk can do it, so can you!

[CoachReilly 688]

That is a two way street though. The fact is, unless you sign your players to long term extensions and get them committed to the franchise as best you can, you will always have doubts about free agency.

 

If player A plays for Team A, but player A knows his contract is running out and he is debating on looking for a GM position there is nothing wrong with player A looking for a team that is willing to give him that spot in free agency, or before it. If Team A isn't interested in giving up their current GM, they have to know they are risking losing player A. If Team B's GM is known around the league as wanting to step down, there is nothing wrong with Player A contacting Team B's GM regarding the role and the future for free agency. That isn't tampering. Team A was given the opportunity to meet their players needs, they didn't. Player A also was the one to contact Team B's GM, not the other way around, and it wasn't in regards to trying to find a way to get them on their team. It was an inquiry regarding the actual status of the GM role and if player A would be a good fit to take over/fill it. The fact that player A will also be a free agent is simply a benefit for the transaction. 

 

too many letters.  it has elements of tampering because he's still under contract with Team A, and thus Team A should be included & compensated for the discussions. Here's my larger point which I think you ignored:

 

- there should be some goddamn rules around GM transition

- allowing to have GMs come in through FA and undrafted paths is a very, very slippery slope. and one that if is allowed, i will be taking advantage of.

- i.e. if i wanted to leave davos, i would just ask Boom, Wingate, every number one overall pick ever to take over for me in their pending FA year.  this wouldn't be tampering because I'm just trying to plan for succession?

- some sort of arbitration committee should be involved in order to ensure the transition is fair.  i.e. Seattle gets +1 / Seattle also gets -1. Nets to zero.

- i hope the board actually looks at what i'm saying ... the league is cyclical in its nature. picks are reset every year. it might take certain teams longer to get pulled out of the doldrums, but it can be done with every team in a reasonable time frame. Seattle DEFINITELY doesn't need a freebie. they just won a goddamn championship.

[Molholt 2,185]

When Mike player gets the Seattle, Stropko has to go - isn't that the -1?

Ie. Here: http://www.vhlforum.com/index.php?/topic/1070-important-retiring-a-playergm-retirement/#entry3835

To acquire Mike's player in the draft, they'll have to trade Stropko.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Molholt

[Kendrick 4,741]

When Mike player gets the Seattle, Stropko has to go - isn't that the -1?

Ie. Here: http://www.vhlforum.com/index.php?/topic/1070-important-retiring-a-playergm-retirement/#entry3835

To acquire Mike's player in the draft, they'll have to trade Stropko.

But they trade off Stropko and get a pick.

 

I think the discussion/argument lies in the fact that Seattle technically gives away a 3rd but gains a franchise pick that could be a lottery level player. In addition to that they can trade an asset away for a pick as well. That asset they are trading could be a 2-3 year rental with a good amount of TPE. That's where the issue lies. Seattle gains basically a free asset (because they had no picks) and also gets to gain another asset in the future. So realistically they would be at +2.

 

Seattle gets this done however if you think about it Cologne had to select the GM when they first started. Or Quebec had to give up a first round pick to get their impending FA GM in Koradek.

 

Fong, just quit it. That discussion isn't worth it because it's a terrible idea.

[gregreg 930]

Sundberg for stropko and we will all be happy

[Molholt 2,185]

Every time a team gets a GM player in the draft its a free asset though. Why is it that much different when its a GM that wasn't on the team versus one that was? 

 

Mike was not going to recreate - so no one is missing out on not getting him in the draft. 

 

Everytime a GM recreates they get a big benefit - they trade their retiring player for assets and then get their own draftee for free. That literally always happens. 

[Kendrick 4,741]

Every time a team gets a GM player in the draft its a free asset though. Why is it that much different when its a GM that wasn't on the team versus one that was? 

 

Mike was not going to recreate - so no one is missing out on not getting him in the draft. 

 

Everytime a GM recreates they get a big benefit - they trade their retiring player for assets and then get their own draftee for free. That literally always happens. 

Getting a GM that you have to spend a pick on is much different than getting him for free.

[Molholt 2,185]

Getting a GM that you have to spend a pick on is much different than getting him for free.

 

I'm not sure I follow. Bernie Gow is already on Riga and the S44 draft hasn't happened yet. Does Riga have to use a pick on him?

[Kendrick 4,741]

I'm not sure I follow. Bernie Gow is already on Riga and the S44 draft hasn't happened yet. Does Riga have to use a pick on him?

No they get him for free because he recreated. GM's don't spend a pick on their own player unless you are in S31.

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

I feel like this would have been much less of a contentious issue if Seattle didn't agree to give a third round pick, and Mike just walked on as a "free agent" before retiring. And that's stupid.

[.sniffuM 1,741]

Make Seattle trade Stropko this offseason for a Season 45 pick, make them use that for Mike's new player, make them trade New York all their good remaining players. Problem solved.

[Ball 453]

Getting a GM that you have to spend a pick on is much different than getting him for free.

Plus that GM ussually comes as a first round pick not a third.

Just a third party prespective I could give two fucks cause Mike deserves the job and fuck yall Calgary all day

[Ball 453]

The rule should be if a team is aquiring a player that intends on becoming the general manager of a team, the minimum price should be a first. If ya dont got one, ya beat

[Molholt 2,185]

That would make sense if the team's also had to use a pick to get their GM in the draft - but they don't.

[Ball 453]

The rule should be if a team is aquiring a player that intends on becoming the general manager of a team, the minimum price should be a first. If ya dont got one, ya beat

Put this man on the BOG, he is preaching out here

[Ball 453]

That would make sense if the team's also had to use a pick to get their GM in the draft - but they don't.

While I disagree with your point, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Its not a controversy that gms can recreate for their team because they can stay the GM if they are the best person for the job. Its not like only a few teams get this privlage. I mean hell yall can have bushitos next player if yall feel like youre being wronged, feel free my Seattle brothas

[Ball 453]

And wouldnt Seattle have to give up Faraday as Higgins was interm gm. Lets go down that route, spice things up

[Higgins 3,618]

And wouldnt Seattle have to give up Faraday as Higgins was interm gm. Lets go down that route, spice things up

 

No I didn't join through the GM recreate rule. Learn the rules m8.

[Molholt 2,185]

While I disagree with your point, I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Its not a controversy that gms can recreate for their team because they can stay the GM if they are the best person for the job. Its not like only a few teams get this privlage. I mean hell yall can have bushitos next player if yall feel like youre being wronged, feel free my Seattle brothas

 

All teams have that privilege - so why would Seattle have to use a pick to acquire a player that isn't bound to any team and...

 

I just saw how this situation differs, it all clicked at once. I get why Seattle should have to "pay" for Mike - but there is no one reasonable to pay. Toronto was already losing him, he's retired. No one could possibly own his recreate that doesn't exist yet. 

 

Maybe the "payment" is that Mike would have to actually use the first part of the GM recreate rule - he can't recreate until he's been the GM for at least a full season?

[Ball 453]

No I didn't join through the GM recreate rule. Learn the rules m8.

Heres a joke take it

[Ball 453]

All teams have that privilege - so why would Seattle have to use a pick to acquire a player that isn't bound to any team and...

 

I just saw how this situation differs, it all clicked at once. I get why Seattle should have to "pay" for Mike - but there is no one reasonable to pay. Toronto was already losing him, he's retired. No one could possibly own his recreate that doesn't exist yet. 

 

Maybe the "payment" is that Mike would have to actually use the first part of the GM recreate rule - he can't recreate until he's been the GM for at least a full season?

True that true that. Like I said I dont care I want Mike to get the job, but I do see where youre coming from