GM Rule Apply to 2nd Player

[STZ 5,360]

If anything this just legitimises the process a little. There's an issue of conflict of interest, as GM's are always going to put their team first before their player, and furthermore before their second player. Regular members can have their fun on two different teams, and GM's get rewarded for being super active on two players.

 

Thoughts?

[Beketov 9,025]

On the one hand I don't like the idea of GM's automatically being rewarded with 2 potentially franchise players that are guaranteed to never leave.

 

BUT, on the other hand, you are right that GM's tend to care more about their team than their player (nothing wrong with that) so they will always focus on team first and potentially hurt other teams.

 

What if they had to use a draft pick (even if it was lower than it would logically be like a 2nd round pick) to get their second player? Then it's not drastically different than something like @DollarAndADream managed but they aren't just guaranteed 2 good players for free.

[STZ 5,360]

11 minutes ago, Beketov said:

On the one hand I don't like the idea of GM's automatically being rewarded with 2 potentially franchise players that are guaranteed to never leave.

 

BUT, on the other hand, you are right that GM's tend to care more about their team than their player (nothing wrong with that) so they will always focus on team first and potentially hurt other teams.

 

What if they had to use a draft pick (even if it was lower than it would logically be like a 2nd round pick) to get their second player? Then it's not drastically different than something like @DollarAndADream managed but they aren't just guaranteed 2 good players for free.

 

Yeah but the playing field is fair.. Every team would have two solidified players that would never leave. What's the issues with every team having potentially two franchise players if everyone has that opportunity?

[Higgins 3,618]

I've grown to not like two players. I liked the league better with one player each. Maybe it's just nostalgia taking over and the good old days were better, but I think rivals and teams were more solidified if you weren't on both say Seattle and Calgary.

 

Some people will complain about this. They want to GM but not have two players and they will feel at a disadvantage compared to other teams. Some people want to GM and experience the draft. As it stands I think there will be GMs purposefully trying to downplay their second players to get them on the draft and other teams will pass because they would rather not risk drafting a rival GM second player.

 

I hate to say it but I think player two should go, but I don't think the league would survive now, not unless there was a contraction becuause there's probably twenty to thirty solid players that would disappear.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

I wouldn't mind that rule at all, but I don't know what it's like having 2 players on 2 teams yet in the VHL as a GM. I managed to draft Ironside, so all I've ever known so far is having both my players on one team.

 

I basically planned it out that way though, to try and land my own guy, so then I'd have a locked up 1st line C and goalie right at the start of my GM reign. Two of the most important positions for me, because I knew I already had Sokolov coming into it. Then if I didn't land Ironside, I was likely getting Kendrick's King anyways.

[Beaviss 4,957]

I'm not a fan at all of having your player have to play for your franchise. Having a sure fire franchise player is great but it kinda dulls down the managing aspect. 

 

I know "but everyone has one" sure that's fine but it still lowers the activity of some teams.

 

For example I'm the GM of the Lynx but I play for the Wild it doesn't make me hate the Wild or any other team it just boosts my activity beacuse I get to care about two teams not just one.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

On the one hand I don't like the idea of GM's automatically being rewarded with 2 potentially franchise players that are guaranteed to never leave.

 

BUT, on the other hand, you are right that GM's tend to care more about their team than their player (nothing wrong with that) so they will always focus on team first and potentially hurt other teams.

 

What if they had to use a draft pick (even if it was lower than it would logically be like a 2nd round pick) to get their second player? Then it's not drastically different than something like @DollarAndADream managed but they aren't just guaranteed 2 good players for free.

 

Dude this was the ultimate "I read your mind" statement.

 

16 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

I'm not a fan at all of having your player have to play for your franchise. Having a sure fire franchise player is great but it kinda dulls down the managing aspect. 

 

I know "but everyone has one" sure that's fine but it still lowers the activity of some teams.

 

For example I'm the GM of the Lynx but I play for the Wild it doesn't make me hate the Wild or any other team it just boosts my activity because I get to care about two teams not just one.

 

It's how it's been since day 1. As read above, when your player is on your team, it prompts you to be active a lot.

[boubabi 4,725]

Fuck that

 

2nd player idea is already cancerous the way it is

[Beaviss 4,957]

10 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Fuck that

 

2nd player idea is already cancerous the way it is

 

I for one will always be a one player person.

[Da Trifecta 1,899]

21 minutes ago, boubabi said:

Fuck that

 

2nd player idea is already cancerous the way it is

 

No

[Bushito 1,945]

3 hours ago, Beketov said:

On the one hand I don't like the idea of GM's automatically being rewarded with 2 potentially franchise players that are guaranteed to never leave.

 

BUT, on the other hand, you are right that GM's tend to care more about their team than their player (nothing wrong with that) so they will always focus on team first and potentially hurt other teams.

 

What if they had to use a draft pick (even if it was lower than it would logically be like a 2nd round pick) to get their second player? Then it's not drastically different than something like @DollarAndADream managed but they aren't just guaranteed 2 good players for free.

I could get on board with that

[boubabi 4,725]

So it would be 2 free boubabis player vs 2 free eaglesfans player

 

 

Seems fair

[STZ 5,360]

so humble lol

[boubabi 4,725]

Me humble? No way

 

Facts are facts though

[Corco 1,237]

Maybe meet in the middle, and restrict your 2nd player to only earning say, 5 TPE a week?

[Beaviss 4,957]

34 minutes ago, Corco said:

Maybe meet in the middle, and restrict your 2nd player to only earning say, 5 TPE a week?

 

Or as a GM your player that's forced to be on the team(your first) is capped at 5 TPE earned a week for being a GM that way all teams have a player they can rely on for being good but not legendary and they have to draft there 2nd player as a pick instead of a gift.

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

Capping players will definitely help to keep the gm interested.... Not.  Why force him to sacrifice individual success with your player to gm a team? We already have trouble keeping all our gm's active the way it is...

 

I like the idea STZ

[Bushito 1,945]

13 minutes ago, Green said:

Capping players will definitely help to keep the gm interested.... Not.  Why force him to sacrifice individual success with your player to gm a team? We already have trouble keeping all our gm's active the way it is...

 

I like the idea STZ

I like it as well

[JardyB10 4,865]

I thought one of the draws of two players was GMs could now have a little bit of freedom from their own franchise? Now the popular opinion is the opposite?

 

Before we go making more decisions based on half-baked logic, I just want to point out that I don't think Player 2 is responsible for harming rivalries. Sure it would have a little effect, I'd certainly be less inclined to hate one other team in the league. But that leaves 8 other teams yet. Sure my teammates might have players on those teams, but as I always say, fuck those teammates! I'd even say that removing rivalry games contributed just as much to the dulling of rivalries than Player 2 did.  #bringbackR5

 

Rivalries have been slow for a while now. They most only existed because of our more bitchy members quite frankly. Like, Phil and I aren't going to incite a rivalry any time soon, but Pablo and DT might, and have. Rivalries are slower because we don't hate each other as much, and best rivalries form when the stars align and all the pieces of shit in the league form on one team, like New York every season. Or just cocky overconfident superteams in general. And then those pieces of shit incite Kendrick and Bushito, and then we all decide to hate them because nobody likes Devise and ADV and Jericho and their stupid Rogue 1 players on their stupid New York team because fuck New York.

 

If you want more rivalries, start being dicks to people. Not like Anderson did, but there's definitely an acceptable ground in the middle.

 

And unfortunately, no, giveth then taketh away is never a good strategy, and that includes contraction. I'll say this every time it gets brought up, but VHLM already proved that contraction is useless. The exact same arguments were made every time the league got contracted, but lo and behold it never actually helped that much. It's a terrible Band-Aid idea that needs to die. You'd be better off rebooting the league. Which is also a bad idea.

 

Also if you wanted vintage, nostalgia VHL, almost none of the major changes in the last 20 seasons should have taken place. We didn't want to live and die by the old VHL format, so now we're forced to keep pivoting to find what works. Unfortunately we can't really backtrack to classic VHL at this point.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

Should I apologize to people for not having a rivalry with any team?

 

Sorry guys, this is a sim league and some of you guys are shitheads sometimes but you're all good in my books and would play for any member any day of the week.

[STZ 5,360]

14 hours ago, DollarAndADream said:

Should I apologize to people for not having a rivalry with any team?

 

Sorry guys, this is a sim league and some of you guys are shitheads sometimes but you're all good in my books and would play for any member any day of the week.

 

Fuck you, buddy

[Kyle 667]

Sorry fellas but the league isn't at the point where it needs to worry about rivalries anymore. We can't even find replacement GM's at the moment, should worry more about staying afloat.

[Frank 5,211]

5 hours ago, Kyle said:

Sorry fellas but the league isn't at the point where it needs to worry about rivalries anymore. We can't even find replacement GM's at the moment, should worry more about staying afloat.

Like Riga @hedgehog337. 

 

 

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

ive come in here to personally say fuck everyone who isnt on Davos but I will retract one of these fuck yous to whoever drafts Brodeur

[jRuutu 2,464]

I don´t like the following teams:

 

Calgary

New York

Seattle

Toronto

Cologne

Davos

Helsinki

Riga

Stockholm