GM Succession

[Molholt 2,183]

Just now, ADwyer87 said:

All I know is I'm glad I'm a VHLM GM haha

 

Where you don't get your own player unless you draft them, correct?

 

So, you can handle being on a different team than the one you're GMing and you don't sabotage it at every turn?

 

Hmm.

[Evans 305]

Just now, Molholt said:

 

Where you don't get your own player unless you draft them, correct?

 

So, you can handle being on a different team than the one you're GMing and you don't sabotage it at every turn?

 

Hmm.

 

No that sucks. I want my own player because I know I'll be active.

[Evans 305]

3 minutes ago, JardyB10 said:

That's just the thing, the "Top 3" succession plans in this article ARE rare situations. That's three un-ideal plans in 48 seasons. Most other last ditch GM-finds were usually able to come to a sensible and legal conclusion. Everyone has seen how bad of a precedent was set with SEA and TOR, which is why we're trying to put a stop to it.

 

Yeah, I can see that. Just trying to throw an error proof idea out there to possibly help lol.

 

Treat players as fair value even if they are being moved to be GM. If they have 500 TPE, require a 500 TPE caliber type of deal for a team to acquire them in a trade. If they are a FA, no compensation is needed because they are on the open market.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

7 minutes ago, Molholt said:

 

Where you don't get your own player unless you draft them, correct?

 

So, you can handle being on a different team than the one you're GMing and you don't sabotage it at every turn?

 

Hmm.

 

Not really the same thing considering the differences in objectives between the two leagues. VHL is about winning, while the VHLM is about developing both your own player and fostering a sense of community for new members. The latter needs as many actives as possible on teams, so moving GM players around is usually necessary. Worse comes to worse, there's usually (or at least was when I was a VHLM GM, haven't done it in a while) a gentlemen's agreement not to select a GMs player if they had a pick "close" to the player's value.

[Molholt 2,183]

Just now, flyersfan1493 said:

 

Not really the same thing considering the differences in objectives between the two leagues. VHL is about winning, while the VHLM is about developing both your own player and fostering a sense of community for new members. The latter needs as many actives as possible on teams, so moving GM players around is usually necessary. Worse comes to worse, there's usually (or at least was when I was a VHLM GM, haven't done it in a while) a gentlemen's agreement not to select a GMs player if they had a pick "close" to the player's value.

 

Fwiw I think VHL GMs should be doing the same thing. 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

1 minute ago, Molholt said:

 

Fwiw I think VHL GMs should be doing the same thing. 

 

Well...yes, but winning is of greater importance in the VHL. Not an either or scenario.

[Molholt 2,183]

Just now, flyersfan1493 said:

 

Well...yes, but winning is of greater importance in the VHL. Not an either or scenario.

 

I don't necessarily agree that winning is of greater importance. 

 

I think building a desirable destination is of importance - which winning helps with but is also bred by. 

[FacePuncher 1,343]

10 minutes ago, flyersfan1493 said:

 

Not really the same thing considering the differences in objectives between the two leagues. VHL is about winning, while the VHLM is about developing both your own player and fostering a sense of community for new members. The latter needs as many actives as possible on teams, so moving GM players around is usually necessary. Worse comes to worse, there's usually (or at least was when I was a VHLM GM, haven't done it in a while) a gentlemen's agreement not to select a GMs player if they had a pick "close" to the player's value.

 I think it's still similar. I know I GM because I enjoy to, I have many other GM sim leagues I'm a part of. Obviously recruiting and developing players is an important part of the VHLM, but I still GM to win. It's a smaller and much quicker cycle between rebuilding and competing, but I think the point is that in the VHLM, for me at least, I enjoy being a GM where I get to try and bring home a cup(as well as step on @StevenStamkos91 on my way to victory), and I enjoy being a player where I can try and be one of the best first gen creates ever. Like I said, this is just for me. But I think separating the two would make the site more fun. Hell, if I was a VHL GM I wouldnt want to only write stories about Stockholm or Quebec or Seattle all the time, I would want a varied career so I get a lot of different experiences, not just one experience on one team all your career

Edited March 7, 2016 by ADwyer87

[Smarch 2,948]

No one asked me to gm that's the real problem

[JardyB10 4,834]

For me, the main difference is that VHLM GMs would really only have a player in the league for one or two seasons, which also happens to be about what an average team's entire turnover is. So sabotage wouldn't even be practical, haha.

[CoachReilly 688]

2 hours ago, Higgins said:

Point 1: Would you have liked me to take over as Davos GM for a 2nd rounder the day before the draft? That seems quite unfair. But I could have taken over Davos the day before I created Black Velvet, with no compensation, and no one would care.

 

Point 2: When a a team goes through a normal GM change they get so much more benefits. Possibilities include, trading the current GMs player for picks, trading the new GMs player as a one season rental, acquiring a prospect with the new GM recreating. 

 

Point 3: 80% of your examples, Bushito, Zoidberg, Ahma, and Coach, all have one thing in common. They up and abandoned their teams while in the position of GM, without ever acknowledging getting a replacement lined up.

 

This shows how warped the thinking is.

 

Point 1 - not sure I fully understand... yes, I would give a shit there.  In that case, it would be like Cologne ... not giving up anything for Jarvi and gaming the hell out of a BOG that doesn't take anything into consideration.  It also fucks teams over who traded for draft picks assuming certain players would be in that draft. These decisions are made well-after those trades are made. Again, something that is NEVER taken into consideration.

 

Point 2 - I agree that this is the most ideal scenario. but your Point #3 disapproves what you're saying here. Bushito/Zoidberg up and left and they got an INCREDIBLE package for basically nothing.

 

In the end, I agree there shouldn't be 100% set, ironclad rules around it, but you should use the concept of value in order to make a decision.  Davos lost a shot at a very good player and Helsinki majorly benefited in that regard.  Davos got a bit fucked in my opinion.  

 

Glad to see all of the discussion. 

[Devise 4,475]

Since Coach went and did this I'll post some of my thoughts here instead of just in our LR.

 

I understand why we feel compelled to force GM"s to pay for GM players when we are so close to a draft. I do. But it's misguided. We are trying to keep things "balanced" but in reality? 

 

@XaviYEAH! Woods made a list of all the GM players that had to forfeit any compensation, in any capacity. The answer at the time, was five total out of every single GM switch. You know what that tells me? GM"s are free. They are. The only thing we should be worried about balancing is ensuring we have the total number of quality GM's. Because history shows us, that every single franchise benefits from the free GM rule at some point, so no franchise should never have to pay to get a GM player unless that player is already signed with another team. I maintain that. Period. Does it suck to take a draftee right before the draft starts? Sure. But it isn't the end of the world. Even if that draftee is 1st overall. 

 

The only thing we could possibly be worried about is teams constantly stepping down as GM to try to leverage some free GM from some draft to steal players/picks. But as a member of the BoG and as the Blue Team should most certainly know, we have a pretty vigorous GM selection process in cases when a replacement isn't already lined up in house. We should still have that process. We should institute a rule that no GM can step down mid-season and when applicable a GM should inform the Blue Team/BoG several weeks before an off-season if they know they are stepping down and do not have an in house replacement made. In the event that a quality GM can't be found, one of the BoG or Blue Team can step in and take over for the team until one is. It's not like it isn't something we haven't discussed doing before. That way we can select GM's who we know won't try to leverage the rules, and we can stop forcing franchises whose GM bails on them to pay any compensation. It's silly when all the other teams get their GM players for free. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Mr. Power

[Devise 4,475]

2 hours ago, Molholt said:

 

Where you don't get your own player unless you draft them, correct?

 

So, you can handle being on a different team than the one you're GMing and you don't sabotage it at every turn?

 

Hmm.

 

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. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Mr. Power

[eaglesfan036 4,585]

The only times a gm stepped down midseason or didnt give notice is if they went inactive so that rule is pointless

[Devise 4,475]

3 minutes ago, eaglesfan036 said:

The only times a gm stepped down midseason or didnt give notice is if they went inactive so that rule is pointless

 

Bingo. I'm going to keep beating this dead horse.  The BoG/Blue Team already go crazy with debates trying to find the best possible way for a team to get their new GM player, once we have determined whose interested in GM roles after a step down of this nature. In the case of Davos for example, most people may have hard that  @Victor was an emergency option. Forcing Davos to give up a pick for their GM made no sense to me. He wasn't on any team and while if a team had scouted him/had interest they are "slightly" burned. I say again, so what? If a team did their job scouting him the GM scouting should always ask every new player what their VHL plans on. Do they ever want to try out being a GM? One quick glance of Gooning would of told you he had GM intentions, especially since we were looking for a replacement to Ahma for a lot longer than just a few days before the draft. GM intentions means stop scouting, there is a chance he goes to a team for free, since he isn't the rights of any other team. So that is how it should be. 

 

For the record as well. The other reason I stand behind this standard is because I can completely understand the GM and member frustration for our "we will make the team compensate as we see fit plan." A league that is fair has standards that in advance everyone can see, and adhere to. It's like the delay of game penalty for throwing the puck over the glass. If you do it in the defensive zone, it's a penalty, regardless of intention. Cut and dry. It means everyone knows that going in, and if they make a mistake the onus is completely on them. I just think it's silly to set that standard at a 2nd round pick or any pick when you see so many GM players join teams for free. The standard should be no compensation haha. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Mr. Power

[boubabi 4,725]

Preparing my evil plan to fuck the system with my next player. I'm taking notes. 

[Evans 305]

I also have GM intentions. Teams that are currently shitholes take notice. 

[FacePuncher 1,343]

I would have GM intentions but this seems like a shit show lol. I don't really want to manage every player I create anyway.....seems super boring

[Gooningitup 1,290]

Guess i should say some words

 

Its certianly interesting to see what occured, and how it changes. As ive stated over and over i dont really care much. I knew id be in for a tough show, given my only real tradeable assest is Sinclair. And the goalie market does not exsist. 

 

Lucky for me it appears i managed to gain some faith, from my top prospect King Robbie. In which he will give me a shot to prove the team will be great again.

 

Now one things i cant say is what these franchise looked like when they took over. But my franchise might aswell be a ghost town. At best i figure 3 seasons before i can even make the playoffs. Right now i have a semi active, a goalie close to retirement that i couldnt trade for bloody peanuts, a top tier prospect, and well now my two current draftees.

 

So basically i have 4 players, dont mistake it im not whining. Id rather have added some higher end prospects but not gunna argue with the call. 

 

End of the day, i just hope this can be fixed, atleast come up with something that covers most situations.

 

I didnt really want to be a GM till isaw what happened with Davos, i hates seeing the team i gave everything too like this. I wont quit, or let what occured stop me from winning a cup and making the next dynasty

[eaglesfan036 4,585]

16 minutes ago, Gooningitup said:

 

 

Lucky for me it appears i managed to gain some faith, from my top prospect King Robbie. In which he will give me a shot to prove the team will be great again.

winning a cup and making the next dynasty

#MakeDavosGreatAgain

[Will 4,604]

3 hours ago, ADwyer87 said:

I would have GM intentions but this seems like a shit show lol. I don't really want to manage every player I create anyway.....seems super boring

 

Unless you plan on abruptly resigning and going inactive, you shouldn't have to deal with this aspect of it.

[FacePuncher 1,343]

8 minutes ago, Draper said:

 

Unless you plan on abruptly resigning and going inactive, you shouldn't have to deal with this aspect of it.

Yeah haha. I just hope to be a VHL GM one day. I heard about this from a GM sim site so that's my favorite thing. So I want to manage one day but this system kinda makes it seem like I wouldn't be as much fun.

 

ill probably try and get a position one day though. After all, there are record in the books, and the name next to them isnt ADwyer87, and that's just not ok

[CoachReilly 688]

The only loophole is with 'Free GMs' are teams who get GMs who have players under contract with other teams (i.e. Riga getting Toast from Davos).

 

Do you just screw the team over who has that player under contract? 

[JardyB10 4,834]

7 hours ago, CoachReilly said:

The only loophole is with 'Free GMs' are teams who get GMs who have players under contract with other teams (i.e. Riga getting Toast from Davos).

 

Do you just screw the team over who has that player under contract? 

I think he was specifically referring to receiving draftees for free. Contracted players is a different thing entirely.

[Devise 4,475]

2 hours ago, JardyB10 said:

I think he was specifically referring to receiving draftees for free. Contracted players is a different thing entirely.

 

Indeed. In the case of contracted players the onus is on the new GM to negotiate with his current GM to find a deal that works. It is a process that has gone pretty smoothly historically.