Cologne GM Change

[Kendrick 4,741]

I don't see why Kendrick.

Greg is a player for the S47 draft, a draft that is still a season away from occurring. Humbert was the GM player that was given to Cologne after Laich retired. Provided Greg trades Humbert before his own player comes up to the VHL in Season 47 no rule is being bent or broken.

If we were closer to the S47 draft I'd say there was an argument for removing a key player, but GM's just finished scouting for the S46 draft, they only have begun to scout for S47. Giving people a season of notice is fair. 

I disagree. As Molholt listed above. You are still taking a player from the draft and giving him to a team for free. Not to mention he gets to trade Humbert for a draft pick. So technically Cologne made a switch and got out of it in a better situation because they get a free player and potentially another draft pick. Considering Seattle and Toronto had to forfeit their 2nd round picks this past draft for the exact same reason, I'd expect this to be the same. Not to mention I had to spend a 1st round pick on my player back when I took over Cologne and that was a season way from the draft too. It shouldn't really matter how close to the draft it is, its the principle of taking a player out of that draft.

[gregreg 930]

Yeah I don't have a problem giving up a 2nd. The price has been set.

[sterling 1,997]

Yeah, precedent has been set with Seattle and Toronto. Not to mention this currently stands to be a crappy draft.

[Devise 4,475]

This rule has never made sense to me. If it's to stop "free players" from occurring, then there is no balance. No matter how you slice it, a team eventually will get a free player from the GM rule. For example, Cologne traded for Laich, I was then able to trade him if I wanted after I retired him but the team got Humbert for free. That is the case across the board. 

In the case of Seattle and Toronto I didn't agree with it either. If it's super close to the draft killing GM's potential scouting of players and where positions of draft picks are lining up since you have a good idea I get. But the "stop the free player" movement makes no sense. Eventually that team is getting a player for free, it's the entire point of the GM rule. Greg pays a 2nd for his player now, in 5 seasons decides to retire, trades him for lets say just for argument sake a better 2nd, then gets his own player on the team for free.

One way or another guys, a GM has the opportunity to leverage the player they gain, and then get their next one for free. 

Realistically it feels like this system is in place to punish teams that go through more GM turmoil. Because if a GM stays with the team for 20 seasons, they will be guaranteed their own free player at zero extra cost every time they build a new player. Same goes for if a team is lucky enough to find a replacement in house. There is zero extra pay. Meanwhile we then end up punishing teams who have a harder time looking for a GM or need to find one out of team. 

When me and Draper discussed it, the fact that Greg had yet to be drafted yet and was still a season away was a drawing point in doing this. Because it's an easy transition. Nobody has the rights to his player yet, there has been no real scouting down for his class and the line up for how picks look next season are still up in the air. Taking him away while it does slightly hurt the draft class, it is no different than GM players who get taken away every draft whom have been GMing the entire tenure they were on their teams. They are still stealing a draft pick and getting a free player. 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Mr. Power

[sterling 1,997]

He'll get hopefully better value back when he trades your player. It's a moot point.

Mind you, your players do suck so perhaps we should make it a third round pick instead to even it out.

[Kendrick 4,741]

Ryan, thats why promoting internally is highly recommended. If you can't do that then you have to go elsewhere. No greg player has no rights, you're correct there. Which makes it all the more evident that the team escapes issues by getting a free player and a potential draft pick. Regardless they cancel each other out. The precedent has been made as was said earlier and I don't see why there is a disagreement on your end. You're arguing with me, who saw the full out hammer of this rule 10+ seasons ago. So obviously I'm going to assume things stayed the same in this manner.

GM players aren't being taken away from the draft haha, they were never really in it technically. No one would scout a GM player because they know his rights automatically go to that team. However, people may have looked at gregreg hyping his player before this and looking to draft him regardless of how close it was. I just don't see your stance here.

[Molholt 2,185]

Ryan, thats why promoting internally is highly recommended.

Sometimes the league decides that someone from Toronto should takeover Seattle and that someone from Seattle should takeover Toronto instead though.

[Kendrick 4,741]

Ryan, thats why promoting internally is highly recommended.

Sometimes the league decides that someone from Toronto should takeover Seattle and that someone from Seattle should takeover Toronto instead though.

I meant to add. Promoting within doesn't exactly always work, I get that part. However, there does have to be compensation headed to either the other team or the draft class (in the draft class' case it is a forfeited pick).

[Devise 4,475]

I suppose. I just mean if you want to look at this for arguments sake. Here is the list of Cologne GM's and what Cologne had to pay and what they got on return for the players.

Cologne Paid a 1st round Pick to acquire Kameron Taylor as a GM player. Taylor stayed with the team for 6 and a half seasons before he was traded along with Malcom Spud and Guido for 2 1sts and a 2nd. So realistically, they eventually got a first round pick as compensation.

I actually can't find a record of David Collier to be honest. It says Romanes first player was drafted by Vasteras 10th overall in S33, however then the only transaction on the trade list is him being sent to Vasteras in Season 39 for a 2nd. Either way, I know that Cologne then traded for Laich in a deal that saw them get two firsts and a second. Cologne then obtained Caprivi for free via the GM rule. Caprivi was then traded in a giant package deal that saw XX and Klose head to Cologne. Which would then see obviously Humbert come in via the GM rule.

I'm not arguing specifically against Cologne paying it Kendrick, I'm more curious what in the hell is the point of the rule? Evidence shows it either balances out, or actually punishes teams who can't promote internally or have shitty situations. Like I was so opposed to this in the TOR/SEA examples despite the reference to the expansion draft because to me it made no sense. We are punishing teams because they had bad GM turmoil. The bad GM turmoil should be the punishment. The fact that they can't promote internally is a negative thing, and that should be punishment in and of itself. Because as you said, promoting internally or sticking with a GM ensures a team more free assets than teams who have to pay to obtain players when they need a new GM. 

[eaglesfan036 4,603]

long paragraph

ah yes devise is back :3

[Kendrick 4,741]

So Ryan what you are saying is that a team with GM issues (not turmoil, that word doesn't really apply) shouldn't be punished, but we should let good GM's sit there and not get rewarded at all? This is their reward for being good GM's without issues, they get to watch another team who mis manages assets and has their GM step down because of lack of time have to give up a pick. Plus it's a 2nd round pick, not sure why there is such issues with it. You overthink it.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

i missed the devise posts

[Devise 4,475]

So Ryan what you are saying is that a team with GM issues (not turmoil, that word doesn't really apply) shouldn't be punished, but we should let good GM's sit there and not get rewarded at all? This is their reward for being good GM's without issues, they get to watch another team who mis manages assets and has their GM step down because of lack of time have to give up a pick. Plus it's a 2nd round pick, not sure why there is such issues with it. You overthink it.

The mismanagement of the assets is the punishment though. Let's say a GM for a team goes inactive right? That has happened before. He misses out on trade opportunities that season, he isn't drafting or scouting/talking to potential prospects. He isn't promoting growth within his team, likely creating a situation where many players want out. We finally find someone new to take over the mess, and that person has to deal with more punishment on top of the mess they are taking over?

This doesn't directly apply to the Cologne situation since I wasn't inactive, just not committed to doing GM work this past season. It helped that I did all my trading last off season as well. But in general, more punishment to teams already with issues doesn't really seem fair to me. To me the purpose of the GM rule is a fair straight across the board balance for every single team. They get a free player. Period. That is what I always thought the point of it was. It mean that any GM taking over for a team provided they had a new up and coming player who had yet to be drafted would be allowed at least that, regardless of other assets. One player to begin to build a franchise around. 

The fact that teams who benefit from better management than a team reeling from mismanagement issues gets all those extra opportunities and then we go ahead and punish the team already in a worse situation by forcing them to pay for a player the other teams would get for free doesn't make sense to me. How does that encourage new GM's to want to take over for franchises in turmoil? How does the at any way help boost the turmoil team out of turmoil, so we have as many teams that are good places for new members to land as possible? 

Edited November 9, 2015 by Mr. Power

[Kendrick 4,741]

So Ryan what you are saying is that a team with GM issues (not turmoil, that word doesn't really apply) shouldn't be punished, but we should let good GM's sit there and not get rewarded at all? This is their reward for being good GM's without issues, they get to watch another team who mis manages assets and has their GM step down because of lack of time have to give up a pick. Plus it's a 2nd round pick, not sure why there is such issues with it. You overthink it.

The mismanagement of the assets is the punishment though. Let's say a GM for a team goes inactive right? That has happened before. He misses out on trade opportunities that season, he isn't drafting or scouting/talking to potential prospects. He isn't promoting growth within his team, likely creating a situation where many players want out. We finally find someone new to take over the mess, and that person has to deal with more punishment on top of the mess they are taking over?

This doesn't directly apply to the Cologne situation since I wasn't inactive, just not committed to doing GM work this past season. It helped that I did all my trading last off season as well. But in general, more punishment to teams already with issues doesn't really seem fair to me. To me the purpose of the GM rule is a fair straight across the board balance for every single team. They get a free player. Period. That is what I always thought the point of it was. It mean that any GM taking over for a team provided they had a new up and coming player who had yet to be drafted would be allowed at least that, regardless of other assets. One player to begin to build a franchise around. 

The fact that teams who benefit from better management than a team reeling from mismanagement issues gets all those extra opportunities and then we go ahead and punish the team already in a worse situation by forcing them to pay for a player the other teams would get for free doesn't make sense to me. How does that encourage new GM's to want to take over for franchises in turmoil? How does the at any way help boost the turmoil team out of turmoil, so we have as many teams that are good places for new members to land as possible? 

So what's stopping greg from becoming disinterested next off-season when he has acquired a 2nd round pick for you and gives the GM job to someone who isn't drafted yet. Cologne then got two free players and two free draft picks after Greg's player is traded. See where this goes?

[boubabi 4,725]

Greg be coming like

[boubabi 4,725]

I be like

[sterling 1,997]

I think the easy point to be made is that a second round pick is not much of a cost for a player who would likely be going first/second overall in most drafts. If anything, Cologne still gains from this transaction.