Getting rid of GM players?

[hedgehog337 3,483]

 

*confused me*

 

I already claimed a welfare TPE for Randoms and I think this was a wrong move. Once again, I sitting here with no idea what to write about. Well, this is a mid-season.

 

However, commishes and BoG gave me an idea. I found out (from some source, not gonna name it) that they were about to get rid of GM players! An interesting change, isn't it? Since I'm not in BoG and can't voice my opinion there, I'll do it right here.

 

I was kinda confused when I saw this info. This could've been a bold change. For decades, we used to think that a GM should have his player only in his team. And he definitely should have a player, having no player in his GM'ed team is weird and doesn't seem right. To be honest, I'm one of these guys who's thinking like that. And now I'm seeing this info...scratching my head cause this is caught me off guard a bit. Getting rid of GM players also means a team is going to lose this player either via trade or retirement. This makes that idea even more bold. But my thoughts about this change that won't happen? (I assume they've decided to shelve it). I'm glad this is not going to happen. Or just negative. Let's see positives and negatives about this change.

 

 

 

More fun in this off-season. Especially for the non-GM players who would be interested to see more unexpected moves from GM's. The landscape of this league also may change, which is fun.

More locker rooms. Some of GM's are only holding their player(s) in their team. With this change, they would discover more locker rooms which could make their time in this league more fun instead of sitting in one LR all the time.

 

 

And to be honest, these all positives I could find in this idea. However, I also have some...more negatives than good.

 

 

Losing a player? This is bullshit. Especially for GM's who have a goalie. So you definitely know I'm going to be against this change. I mean, Kallis is not that good, but he's still a goalie.

Sabotaging a player to not help his rivals. A GM may trade his guy to other team and immediately stop updating because he doesn't wants to help that other team. And maybe he even gonna retire after a season. I assume we're better than that, but I just can't to not point this out.

Losing a motivation to create a player. I mean, why even creating a player if he's going to your rival anyways. That's gonna suck for GM's who hates to lose.

It's safer with his own player, not other GM's guy. Enough said.

 

 

To be honest, negatives outweighs the positives by a wide margin. And I'm being biased by this cause I'm not inerested to lose a goalie. And while I could find a solution to this via trade, but I can't control other user and his plans on his player. Maybe he wants to retire his player in 1-2 seasons? And not even because he doesn't likes my team, just because he wants to make a fresh start. It's safer with my own player, knowing that only I'm in charge in this player not someone else.

 

Anyways, as I said earlier this change will likely be shelved and I assume it's not gonna happen. So that's just a 500 word article, thanks for reading.

 

 

6 TPE goes to Kallis.

[Beketov 9,023]

It was something we discussed but ultimately not what we decided on. We discuss a lot of things that don’t actually pan out.

 

The idea was that by having GM simply be like any other job in the league, not linked to a player, GM’s would be able to have their freedom (what GM’s still having 2 players is an argument for) while also having them be draftable to their own teams if they want to. It would have fascilitated GM transitions much easier because there’s no complicated mess of players having to be moved or retired or what-not. Someone just takes over the job and that’s it.

 

Ultimately it was deemed too drastic for the league right now so instead we just formalized some set rules for GM changes which was the main point of the discussion. Sometimes you gotta discuss major changes though just to see how they look.