GM Succession

[Victor 10,934]

I have no idea how Greg ended up in Cologne tbh as I was barely here in S46. I'm not sure I'd even want to re-do Seattle because Mike wouldn't have recreated so we weren't taking a player from the draft really, plus it wasn't clear how active he would be TPE-wise. Molholt is the only incorrect valuation as I see it but then this was probably a case of not fucking over Toronto more, feeling guilty for not making Mike GM there when we had the chance, and the fact that it was at the same time as the Seattle GM change and it would have been difficult to have one giving up a 1st and one a 2nd.

 

It's not a perfect system but I don't see how it ever can be. One side can point out all the flaws of every transition, especially with the benefit of hindsight, but as shown above, all these decisions have merit and aren't made on a whim.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

7 minutes ago, Victor said:

I have no idea how Greg ended up in Cologne tbh as I was barely here in S46. I'm not sure I'd even want to re-do Seattle because Mike wouldn't have recreated so we weren't taking a player from the draft really, plus it wasn't clear how active he would be TPE-wise. Molholt is the only incorrect valuation as I see it but then this was probably a case of not fucking over Toronto more, feeling guilty for not making Mike GM there when we had the chance, and the fact that it was at the same time as the Seattle GM change and it would have been difficult to have one giving up a 1st and one a 2nd.

 

It's not a perfect system but I don't see how it ever can be. One side can point out all the flaws of every transition, especially with the benefit of hindsight, but as shown above, all these decisions have merit and aren't made on a whim.

 

Didn't Seattle not have a 1st round pick available to give up? I remember that happening to someone, and I thought it was Seattle, but I'm not 100% on that.

[Victor 10,934]

1 minute ago, flyersfan1493 said:

 

Didn't Seattle not have a 1st round pick available to give up? I remember that happening to someone, and I thought it was Seattle, but I'm not 100% on that.

They didn't have a S45 1st which was Molholt's draft year but they did have one in S46 and it was a S46 2nd they ended up giving up. I don't think that was or should be the reasoning.

[CoachReilly 688]

so greg is not also an incorrect valuation? confused. also, doesn't matter if mike wouldn't have come back seattle got something and paid virtually nothing. don't twist it based on extenuating circumstances as weak as that.

[scoop 3,425]

On 3/7/2016 at 3:50 PM, Higgins said:

Would you have liked me to take over as Davos GM for a 2nd rounder the day before the draft? That seems quite unfair.

No, but Jarvi, Molholt, et al should not have gone to their respective teams for seconds rounders either. That's webcast makes it bs. Assure the timing is different  a prospect is a prospect nonetheless. 

[Victor 10,934]

3 hours ago, CoachReilly said:

so greg is not also an incorrect valuation? confused. also, doesn't matter if mike wouldn't have come back seattle got something and paid virtually nothing. don't twist it based on extenuating circumstances as weak as that.

I clearly said I don't know what the reasoning for Greg was?

 

Also don't make this out as if I'm just making this up right now or twisting it, I'm just telling you what the reasoning was at the time.

 

Also stevo was drafted after the forfeited picks in S46 so they still had value.

[scoop 3,425]

On 3/9/2016 at 6:15 PM, Victor said:

I'm not sure I'd even want to re-do Seattle because Mike wouldn't have recreated so we weren't taking a player from the draft really, plus it wasn't clear how active he would be TPE-wise.

Alright so if I say I'll recreate only if I can play for New York, they just have to sacrifice a second to get me? Plus it's not clear how active Komarov will be TPE-wise. It's up to the GM to get value out of his or her player.

 

@Victor

Edited March 10, 2016 by Streetlight
because Victor didn't respond when I crushed his argument

[CoachReilly 688]

5 hours ago, Victor said:

I clearly said I don't know what the reasoning for Greg was?

 

Also don't make this out as if I'm just making this up right now or twisting it, I'm just telling you what the reasoning was at the time.

 

Also stevo was drafted after the forfeited picks in S46 so they still had value.

 

my issue is with you saying this: "Molholt is the only incorrect valuation as I see it "  -- what? just because you weren't around for greg's or feel like you didn't give any input on it, that doesn't make it a correct valuation.

 

believe it or not, this isn't an attack on victor.  it's an attack on the process. Mike, Molholt, greg all ridiculously kind exchanges, and now Komarov is well on the overpay side.  i'm making a point, so that the give/take isn't constantly swinging back and forth.

[diamond_ace 3,112]

On 3/7/2016 at 5:37 PM, CowboyinAmerica said:

 

Not that he'd do this, but take this year's Calgary team. What's to stop Eagles from, say, trading himself with TebowGow to New York for the rest of his career for no compensation? Sure it might screw Calgary, but his player gets the best chance at a Cup possible since NY didn't have to give anything up, so he's happy.

 

Or the flip side, say TebowGow gets drafted by Quebec. What's stopping him from not updating once that happens - or worse, dumping all of his points into Fighting so Quebec's cap raises, then paying for a reallocation from the Player's Store once he can sign to his own team?

 

Not locking GMs into their teams opens up a bunch of potentially dirty tactics. And although I feel like the majority of GMs wouldn't take advantage of them, I wouldn't guarantee that.

I absolutely would have done this, had it been the rule when I was running Calgary

[Victor 10,934]

4 hours ago, CoachReilly said:

 

my issue is with you saying this: "Molholt is the only incorrect valuation as I see it "  -- what? just because you weren't around for greg's or feel like you didn't give any input on it, that doesn't make it a correct valuation.

 

believe it or not, this isn't an attack on victor.  it's an attack on the process. Mike, Molholt, greg all ridiculously kind exchanges, and now Komarov is well on the overpay side.  i'm making a point, so that the give/take isn't constantly swinging back and forth.

I can't comment on the reasoning behind the Cologne transition if I wasn't involved, can I? It looks wrong but I want to give the benefit of the doubt to those that made it.

 

And for the 115th time, Komarov was not an overpayment. If anything, that should be the standard going forward but that can't be guaranteed because the chances of every GM falling at or about their right draft position for their team aren't great.

[JardyB10 4,865]

11 minutes ago, Victor said:

I can't comment on the reasoning behind the Cologne transition if I wasn't involved, can I? It looks wrong but I want to give the benefit of the doubt to those that made it.

 

And for the 115th time, Komarov was not an overpayment. If anything, that should be the standard going forward but that can't be guaranteed because the chances of every GM falling at or about their right draft position for their team aren't great.

I see what he's saying though. If any of the SEA-TOR-COL situations "aren't wrong" then the current Davos situation is.

 

But the reality is that the Davos situation is the only one of the four that was handled correctly. So it's already kind of bullshit for them. But if there was ever another situation handled like SEA-TOR-COL after this decision, then Davos would, in fact, be getting violently fisted.

[Victor 10,934]

But it's not black and white. All these situations can be dealt with differently and still correctly. I'm not saying they were, as I don't know about Cologne and Toronto was definitely the product of Seattle but I don't think there was a better solution for Seattle which wouldn't have been an overpayment.

[stevo 791]

Just make me a gm already plebz

[stevo 791]

#munk4commish

[Victor 10,934]

2 minutes ago, stevo said:

Just make me a gm already plebz

 

2 minutes ago, stevo said:

#munk4commish

these are causes I can get behind

[stevo 791]

I always knew we'd get along (if you follow my lead, of course)

[Victor 10,934]

43 minutes ago, stevo said:

I always knew we'd get along (if you follow my lead, of course)

the real question is would you be willing to give up a 1st overall pick to GM?

[CoachReilly 688]

2 hours ago, Victor said:

But it's not black and white. 

except it is in certain respects.  facts have been presented, and i think you are ignoring them.  let's not just posture that, "oh, i don't know 100% of the facts."  we know the key facts in front of us. i'm really not trying to get argumentative in a disrespectful nature about this anymore, but to deny you have the facts on the cologne situation is simply misguided.  

Edited March 9, 2016 by CoachReilly

[Victor 10,934]

7 minutes ago, CoachReilly said:

except it is in certain respects.  facts have been presented, and i think you are ignoring them.  let's not just posture that, "oh, i don't know 100% of the facts."  we know the key facts in front of us. i'm really not trying to get argumentative in a disrespectful nature about this anymore, but to deny you have the facts on the cologne situation is simply misguided.  

You have just said in that other thread that I refuse to see your side but it appears to me to be the complete opposite.

 

Let's take the "facts" of the Cologne situation.

- Devise presumably wanted to step down with no internal solution.

- Greg presumably was the only external option at the time. Or perhaps the easiest one to get to Cologne. This would have been an important consideration.

- Sundberg was on Davos at that time but was he a free agent? Or freshly retired? Or was he going to retire to GM but was also a pending FA in which case the BOG skipped the step of letting him go to free agency and then signing for Cologne for free and just letting him join Cologne asap since they were in a dire state. In that case, I would understand why he would move for free.

- I feel like he wasn't meant to move for free though this bit I am completely unsure of. Perhaps compensation was agreed but not enforced by the commishes or anyone else, which seems to have been alluded to. In that case it is not a failure of the GM succession process but a failure higher up.

 

I don't think I've considered everything and yet I have already had to make 3-4 assumptions. You have dealt in absolutes so far and I have brought up for every case the mitigating factors which affected the decisions made. I pretty much said that Toronto was a fuck-up, yet you have insisted on focusing on a Cologne case which I can't make a reasonable argument for or against because of the above.

 

Most importantly, I would like to stress that I have not been saying what I think about each case (most of the time) but rather how the BOG came to the decision it did. Except the Cologne case, because I do not know, but you have pretty much forced me to consider how it was done. Just because I am the current BOG mouthpiece for some reason doesn't mean these are my opinions. I'm just trying to explain why you can't look at the raw data and assume you have all the key facts.

[boubabi 4,725]

[boubabi 4,725]

[boubabi 4,725]

sorry, pun is life 

[Baozi 1,658]

On 3/8/2016 at 6:11 PM, Mr. Power said:

 

That is easy to do when your on the team for a single season in most cases. The amount of times a conflict of interest comes up would be a lot rarer than in the VHL. Where a GM could find his own player on the team he is facing for the Cup. "Ooops, I made shitty lines and we lost real fast, my bad." It's just a lot easier to completely avoid that potential conflict of interest. Or if you want something that would be a real scenario? I'm a GM on a rebuilding team and my player is on an offensive juggernaut. Shit I set my lines to 5 physical every single time we played my team and we lost 12-0. Stat padding galore. Why do I care it helps me tank to get 1st OA! Win, win!  

 

Again, the GM player should be free to every team. It's a concept that only exists because of the realities of being in a sim league versus actually playing sport in real life. It should be disassociated with this fair compensation stuff, and as we have seen throughout VHL history the overwhelming majority of GM players join their teams for free. 

 

Stuff like that would be fairly easy to track since you can see it in the history if a GM is deliberatly "sabotaging" or altering results in such a way. Then you can just punish accordingly. In each of my seasons as GM my player has been on other teams.

 

That being said, its only a brief note that I do not support GMs getting free players because its also the reason why I won't GM. I don't want my own player haha.

Edited March 9, 2016 by tfong

[boubabi 4,725]

we can't really punish tanking honestly

[Baozi 1,658]

14 minutes ago, boubabi said:

we can't really punish tanking honestly

 

Make them sit in chat with me all day.