New GM Announcement

[Bushito 1,945]

1 minute ago, Kendrick said:

I think they go to those teams but they do have to give up a pick in their draft years which is next year I imagine

His newly created 2nd player, Kristof Mueller will be sent to Cologne as the GM player with no forfeiture. 

 

 Tyler will be retiring his defender Thomas Sankara, who is a S57 prospect and recreating a new 2nd player who will go to Davos under the GM player rule with no forfeiture.

[Kendrick 4,724]

1 minute ago, Bushito said:

His newly created 2nd player, Kristof Mueller will be sent to Cologne as the GM player with no forfeiture. 

 

 Tyler will be retiring his defender Thomas Sankara, who is a S57 prospect and recreating a new 2nd player who will go to Davos under the GM player rule with no forfeiture.

Oh that does seem weird. What is the reasoning behind this?

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Yeah that seems real fishy @Bushito

[Bushito 1,945]

1 minute ago, KGR said:

Yeah that seems real fishy @Bushito

20$ says Cologne wins the Lotto next. lol

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

1 minute ago, Bushito said:

20$ says Cologne wins the Lotto next. lol

 

Idk about that but gave me a good chuckle.

[Devise 4,475]

13 minutes ago, Kendrick said:

Oh that does seem weird. What is the reasoning behind this?

 

@Bushito if I recall your situation was different was it not? As in, the player you were creating wasn't just created, aka you were not creating him to GM. Which would mean you were "stealing" a draft pick from a future draft that GM's had to scout. I am trying to recall that exact process, remember we take things on a case by case basis. Which often means it's not as black and white as people would like. 

 

I floated what compensation would be for each of the two in the Blue HQ, and @Will mentioned there shouldn't be forfeiture if they are just creating their 2nd players right now to join the club, as they aren't scheduled for any upcoming draft, they'd be S58 players. But not to throw him under the bus I agreed with his thought process here. Realistically, when we are low on GM's and need people trying to accommodate clean GM swaps is a top priority. 

 

Also @punkhippie regarding your Trombone response, no team can have two players on it acquired via the GM rule. This is to avoid teams just building their teams by getting a free GM player, then giving the GM role to someone on their club and keeping the other player on the team. It's not written in the rules yet (it needs to be) but it's been in effect since I was here in like Season 24. When I took over as GM of NY in Season 31, Glover at the time was acquired via the GM rule. My next player Rift, could not be on the main club the same as Glover, I'd have to either trade him or he'd retire before my player could come up to the club. In this case, Trombone was acquired via the GM rule, as Tylers 2nd player will be in the VHLM, Trombone can freely be on the roster. But once his 2nd player is on the roster, he'll have to move Trombone as he can't have two players acquired via the GM rule on the club. 

 

Oh also Anderson, Tylers other second player was only brought up, as his low TPE as well, due to it being an influencing factor on his decision. GM hires are preferably internal to avoid any of this confusion. But in cases when they are not, we like it to be as clean as possible. Had Tylers 2nd player been some 300+ TPE high end prospect, stealing him or retiring him from the draft is unfair to the other GM's in the league. But because he admitted he would rather just retire and create as he hasn't been that active with him, it allows this to be a cleaner solution. 

[BOOM 8,408]

Congratulations Tyler. PM sent.

[Bushito 1,945]

16 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

@Bushito if I recall your situation was different was it not? As in, the player you were creating wasn't just created, aka you were not creating him to GM. Which would mean you were "stealing" a draft pick from a future draft that GM's had to scout. I am trying to recall that exact process, remember we take things on a case by case basis. Which often means it's not as black and white as people would like. 

 

I floated what compensation would be for each of the two in the Blue HQ, and @Will mentioned there shouldn't be forfeiture if they are just creating their 2nd players right now to join the club, as they aren't scheduled for any upcoming draft, they'd be S58 players. But not to throw him under the bus I agreed with his thought process here. Realistically, when we are low on GM's and need people trying to accommodate clean GM swaps is a top priority. 

 

Also @punkhippie regarding your Trombone response, no team can have two players on it acquired via the GM rule. This is to avoid teams just building their teams by getting a free GM player, then giving the GM role to someone on their club and keeping the other player on the team. It's not written in the rules yet (it needs to be) but it's been in effect since I was here in like Season 24. When I took over as GM of NY in Season 31, Glover at the time was acquired via the GM rule. My next player Rift, could not be on the main club the same as Glover, I'd have to either trade him or he'd retire before my player could come up to the club. In this case, Trombone was acquired via the GM rule, as Tylers 2nd player will be in the VHLM, Trombone can freely be on the roster. But once his 2nd player is on the roster, he'll have to move Trombone as he can't have two players acquired via the GM rule on the club. 

 

Oh also Anderson, Tylers other second player was only brought up, as his low TPE as well, due to it being an influencing factor on his decision. GM hires are preferably internal to avoid any of this confusion. But in cases when they are not, we like it to be as clean as possible. Had Tylers 2nd player been some 300+ TPE high end prospect, stealing him or retiring him from the draft is unfair to the other GM's in the league. But because he admitted he would rather just retire and create as he hasn't been that active with him, it allows this to be a cleaner solution. 

My situation is the exact same as Dexter Lane and @ADV 100%. I was told absolutely Kensington for my first or trade for Abbott. If retiring Kensington was an option even I would have taken that for sure since I am retiring him anyway next trade deadline.

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, Bushito said:

My situation is the exact same as Dexter Lane and @ADV 100%. I was told absolutely Kensington for my first or trade for Abbott. If retiring Kensington was an option even I would have taken that for sure since I am retiring him anyway next trade deadline.

 

Dexter Lane is already on a team. He isn't the GM player of Cologne. Advantage created a new player literally days ago to fill this whole. How soon and how much TPE was created before the GM stuff was going on? I recall talking with you about the GM situation, but that was also when if I recall we were looking to get two GM replacements, had missing commish and Smarch was getting ready to take over.

 

I'm just trying to remember the exact situation. You had Abbott on Helsinki I recall, and you already had a 2nd player created correct? 

[scoop 3,254]

21 minutes ago, Devise said:

I floated what compensation would be for each of the two in the Blue HQ, and @Will mentioned there shouldn't be forfeiture if they are just creating their 2nd players right now to join the club, as they aren't scheduled for any upcoming draft, they'd be S58 players. But not to throw him under the bus I agreed with his thought process here. Realistically, when we are low on GM's and need people trying to accommodate clean GM swaps is a top priority.

Is this situation similar to the DAAD situation with Boeser and what was the resolution there?

[Bushito 1,945]

16 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

Dexter Lane is already on a team. He isn't the GM player of Cologne. Advantage created a new player literally days ago to fill this whole. How soon and how much TPE was created before the GM stuff was going on? I recall talking with you about the GM situation, but that was also when if I recall we were looking to get two GM replacements, had missing commish and Smarch was getting ready to take over.

 

I'm just trying to remember the exact situation. You had Abbott on Helsinki I recall, and you already had a 2nd player created correct? 

I meant his new player not Lane. But yeah I created Kensington shortly before taking over Stockholm. Pretty similar situation except I wasn't given the option to recreate as a GM player and retire Kensington, it was either give up the top 3 pick or trade for Abbott which I did and it cost me a fortune. I could have had Davose 1st and 2nd this draft just for the Trombone let alone all the other shit I give up. Just really chaps my ass now seeing this, I could have been so much better off. Just retire  Kensington and recreate my center immediately and keep my fist, christ.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Bushito

[Gudnason 607]

Will posts in the BOG?!

[Gudnason 607]

56 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

@Bushito if I recall your situation was different was it not? As in, the player you were creating wasn't just created, aka you were not creating him to GM. Which would mean you were "stealing" a draft pick from a future draft that GM's had to scout. I am trying to recall that exact process, remember we take things on a case by case basis. Which often means it's not as black and white as people would like. 

 

I floated what compensation would be for each of the two in the Blue HQ, and @Will mentioned there shouldn't be forfeiture if they are just creating their 2nd players right now to join the club, as they aren't scheduled for any upcoming draft, they'd be S58 players. But not to throw him under the bus I agreed with his thought process here. Realistically, when we are low on GM's and need people trying to accommodate clean GM swaps is a top priority. 

 

Also @punkhippie regarding your Trombone response, no team can have two players on it acquired via the GM rule. This is to avoid teams just building their teams by getting a free GM player, then giving the GM role to someone on their club and keeping the other player on the team. It's not written in the rules yet (it needs to be) but it's been in effect since I was here in like Season 24. When I took over as GM of NY in Season 31, Glover at the time was acquired via the GM rule. My next player Rift, could not be on the main club the same as Glover, I'd have to either trade him or he'd retire before my player could come up to the club. In this case, Trombone was acquired via the GM rule, as Tylers 2nd player will be in the VHLM, Trombone can freely be on the roster. But once his 2nd player is on the roster, he'll have to move Trombone as he can't have two players acquired via the GM rule on the club. 

 

Oh also Anderson, Tylers other second player was only brought up, as his low TPE as well, due to it being an influencing factor on his decision. GM hires are preferably internal to avoid any of this confusion. But in cases when they are not, we like it to be as clean as possible. Had Tylers 2nd player been some 300+ TPE high end prospect, stealing him or retiring him from the draft is unfair to the other GM's in the league. But because he admitted he would rather just retire and create as he hasn't been that active with him, it allows this to be a cleaner solution. 

 

Clear on the Tyler thing. Thanks. 

 

But the Trombone doesn't make sense. Makes sense that Glover should be retired before Rift can join. But I don't see the logic in allowing Glover to be traded for assets then letting Rift join freely...

[Gudnason 607]

36 minutes ago, Strtlght said:

Is this situation similar to the DAAD situation with Boeser and what was the resolution there?

 

That was right around when I rejoined. Makes sense now. It was a mystery whether DAD would make Ironside GM or not, but since he traded down for more assets and still got him, I believe he then made Boeser the GM player right after which explains why Boeser is younger?

[Gudnason 607]

24 minutes ago, Bushito said:

I meant his new player not Lane. But yeah I created Kensington shortly before taking over Stockholm. Pretty similar situation except I wasn't given the option to recreate as a GM player and retire Kensington, it was either give up the top 3 pick or trade for Abbott which I did and it cost me a fortune. I could have had Davose 1st and 2nd this draft just for the Trombone let alone all the other shit I give up. Just really chaps my ass now seeing this, I could have been so much better off. Just retire  Kensington and recreate my center immediately and keep my fist, christ.

 

May have been worse than ideal, but you still have a shit load of pieces to work with

[Bushito 1,945]

14 minutes ago, punkhippie said:

 

May have been worse than ideal, but you still have a shit load of pieces to work with

Not really, I have a couple guys in this draft, like 2-3, then 1 next year maybe 2 and same thing the year after. I think realistically we have 4 good players and maybe 4 average ones by S59 best case scenario. Not that I'm going to bitch about that, I got lucky with some trades and made the most of what was left to me but it could have been way better.

[Gudnason 607]

10 minutes ago, Bushito said:

Not really, I have a couple guys in this draft, like 2-3, then 1 next year maybe 2 and same thing the year after. I think realistically we have 4 good players and maybe 4 average ones by S59 best case scenario. Not that I'm going to bitch about that, I got lucky with some trades and made the most of what was left to me but it could have been way better.

 

Or you could have been like Cologne

[Bushito 1,945]

1 minute ago, punkhippie said:

 

Or you could have been like Cologne

If I was they would have been in the playoffs this year, lol.

[Gudnason 607]

10 minutes ago, Bushito said:

If I was they would have been in the playoffs this year, lol.

 

At who's expense? And don't just say Helsinki because we were worst. They would probably still have Abbott, and Davos wouldn't have had DeGrath if I didn't take Threencarnac for them lol

[Bushito 1,945]

1 minute ago, punkhippie said:

 

At who's expense? And don't just say Helsinki because we were worst. They would probably still have Abbott, and Davos wouldn't have had DeGrath if I didn't take Threencarnac for them lol

I was saying if I took over Cologne when you did I would have had them in the playoffs this season.

[Kesler 1,514]

rip these 2 franchises 

[Gudnason 607]

9 minutes ago, Bushito said:

I was saying if I took over Cologne when you did I would have had them in the playoffs this season.

 

I was asking if you took over Cologne when I did  who would have missed the playoffs this season alongside Stockholm.

[Devise 4,475]

9 minutes ago, Pablo said:

rip these 2 franchises 

 

Ez

[Bushito 1,945]

23 minutes ago, punkhippie said:

 

I was asking if you took over Cologne when I did  who would have missed the playoffs this season alongside Stockholm.

Riga because I would have bought from NYA and save the team from a few poor trades, probably would have taken the cup, lol.

[Gooningitup 1,290]

6 hours ago, Bushito said:

I meant his new player not Lane. But yeah I created Kensington shortly before taking over Stockholm. Pretty similar situation except I wasn't given the option to recreate as a GM player and retire Kensington, it was either give up the top 3 pick or trade for Abbott which I did and it cost me a fortune. I could have had Davose 1st and 2nd this draft just for the Trombone let alone all the other shit I give up. Just really chaps my ass now seeing this, I could have been so much better off. Just retire  Kensington and recreate my center immediately and keep my fist, christ.

 

This happened to me too when i took over Davos lol. I had to give up a high first to draft my player who shouldnt have been picked that high. Instead of getting real assets.