GMing without a player

[Squinty 116]

Is that a thing? Has it been done before? What if I want to GM one day but don't want to make another player? Is it even allowed? All these questions!

[Kesler 1,514]

Think it would be cool imo tbh.

[Guest]

We addressed this in the BOG.

 

1. We would have to recruit like madness to be able to achieve a team where you have that many guys.

2. You put your team at a huge disadvantage because you don't have a huge asset on your team.

[Squinty 116]

We addressed this in the BOG.

1. We would have to recruit like madness to be able to achieve a team where you have that many guys.

2. You put your team at a huge disadvantage because you don't have a huge asset on your team.

I don't understand your first point. Say I take over as GM of a team...like Vasteras or something. Why would anyone need to recruit more than normal, if the team is only down one player?

Second point I get though, but you also get more cap room to work with

[Kesler 1,514]

I don't understand your first point. Say I take over as GM of a team...like Vasteras or something. Why would anyone need to recruit more than normal, if the team is only down one player?

 

^^^

[Guest]

I don't understand your first point. Say I take over as GM of a team...like Vasteras or something. Why would anyone need to recruit more than normal, if the team is only down one player?

Second point I get though, but you also get more cap room to work with

Well in order to fill a team that is down one player, you'd need to have one more active player. I see what you are saying but it makes more sense doing this when we have tons and tons of active players (more than we do now).

 

I think your cap point is mute though. Why put your team at a disadvantage by not having even a semi-active welfare player as a 5th forward or asset. That just makes the talent level go down by one good player.

[Squinty 116]

Well in order to fill a team that is down one player, you'd need to have one more active player. I see what you are saying but it makes more sense doing this when we have tons and tons of active players (more than we do now).

 

I think your cap point is mute though. Why put your team at a disadvantage by not having even a semi-active welfare player as a 5th forward or asset. That just makes the talent level go down by one good player.

 

I'll try putting into words what i'm trying to say, although I think I understand what you mean.

 

Let's assume just for the purpose of this example, that Corcoran decides three seasons from now, that he no longer wants to GM Vasty and steps down. Then I take his place, and Valiq has one last season before he retires. The season passes, Valiq retires, and I don't recreate but remain GM of Vasty. With Valiq's cap off the books (since they did count towards the cap), rather than recreate, and add my new players salary to the cap of Vasty, I could pursue a different free agent and use money that would have been used for my next player, towards said free agent.

 

In your reply that I quoted, you said yourself, we have tons and tons of active players. What's to say that I couldn't find an active player to sign and play where I would have with my next player. In response to your second statement, how would that put my team at a disadvantage by not having a semi-active welfare player, when instead I could sign someone else that could help benefit the team elsewhere.

 

Sorry if this is confusing, it was kind of hard putting into word what I meant.

[Guest]

I'll try putting into words what i'm trying to say, although I think I understand what you mean.

 

Let's assume just for the purpose of this example, that Corcoran decides three seasons from now, that he no longer wants to GM Vasty and steps down. Then I take his place, and Valiq has one last season before he retires. The season passes, Valiq retires, and I don't recreate but remain GM of Vasty. With Valiq's cap off the books (since they did count towards the cap), rather than recreate, and add my new players salary to the cap of Vasty, I could pursue a different free agent and use money that would have been used for my next player, towards said free agent.

 

In your reply that I quoted, you said yourself, we have tons and tons of active players. What's to say that I couldn't find an active player to sign and play where I would have with my next player. In response to your second statement, how would that put my team at a disadvantage by not having a semi-active welfare player, when instead I could sign someone else that could help benefit the team elsewhere.

 

Sorry if this is confusing, it was kind of hard putting into word what I meant.

Actually I think you misunderstood me. We don't have tons and tons of active players. Thats what I was getting at, we would need those. When I said "more than we have now" I meant we have a crop of active guys (not a lot) but would needs tons more to make this worthwhile.

 

Why not have your player and the possibility of bringing in a FA as well. Very rarely does a team not have cash to throw at a free agent. You are speaking on speculative though by saying "when instead I could have a FA", yes you could, but you could not too which then puts your team further in the whole cause they wouldn't have that FA or a player you made.

 

Here is my example: Say someone like Mike falls out of favour with everyone in this league (very highly unlikely) and wants to just be a GM. No one would want to sign with him and he wouldn't have a player either. Thus his team is in a constant rebuild. 

[Squinty 116]

Ohhhh ok I see what you're getting at. Although at the same time, it might be worthwhile to experiment with it and see how it goes. If it fails, then obviously we would put it off until we had more actives.

 

And if someone like Mike fell out of favour, then would he not step down, or could we just implement a new rule involving firing of GMs? That would add more competitiveness to the league as well, if you asked me.

 

Just my 2c.

[Mike 708]

Would be cool if that could happen as I'd always stay GM of a team even if I decided to stop making players.  However to deny your team a free player requiring no draft picks and no trades to acquire is just a bad choice as a GM.  Even if you do welfare every week to get a player who can do something you owe it to your team.  You also can't preach activity and hard work if you yourself aren't putting in some effort.  I don't know how many times we've dealt with that but early PensFan is the most personal example for me as I was traded to Vasteras early on S4ish.

[Mike 708]

Lol and if Mike fell out of favor what u getting at Squinty.

[Squinty 116]

I'm only replying to what Kendrick said.

Your post makes sense though.
YOU WIN

[Victor 10,940]

Yeah to be fair, if you have time to GM, you'll have time to claim 4-5 TPE a week. Silly Squinty.

[Squinty 116]

YOU'RE THE SILLY ONE

[Guest]

Squinty, I know what you are saying. And pretty much you're right if it failed, you could always just go and create a player with your carryover and have him compete. 

 

Alfie, his point wasn't really claiming or activeness from the GM (who doesn't have a player) it was more cap reasons.

[Victor 10,940]

Yeah it's just unnecessary. Welfare players take up less cap anyway... this just seems worse with every post. Squinty, you're the worst. <3

[Squinty 116]

I'M JUST SO LAZY THAT I WANT TO GM BUT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER PLAYER

[jack 498]

Make another player named Saggitariut Jefferspin. Or I'll cry.

[Corco 1,237]

Just make a goon squinty, you know you want to.