Unlinking GM Players and Removing Project Player 2

[Will 4,600]

7 minutes ago, Gooningitup said:

Glad Evgeni is my last player I dunno i dont agree with making GMs pay for there players. Especially if we are gunna implement a point where they have to he drafted by there team. This effectively can cripple a franchise but hey everyone else likes it. An i wont be applying for GM again anyways so doesnt effect me

 

I mean I don't where the line will be but say they have to pay a 6th overall or better, for that they're getting a player where they have complete control over how much TPE they earn and how long the player stays with the franchise...it's the safest bet ever

[boubabi 4,725]

Inb4 multiple conflict of interest

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

21 hours ago, Motzaburger said:

It's also a ginormous conflict of interest for the GM, so I'm glad it's gone. 

 

Active members should never have to compete with a GM's second player for a position. Further, GM players should not have priority in the lineup over active users that are not GMs. 

 

Motzaburger's Hierarchy of Play:

Actives (no job) > GM players > Welfare actives > inactives.

 

 

Some exceptions obviously exist and this would, like every other system, never be perfect

 

So because I use the affiliate welfare, I shouldn't get the opportunity to lineup higher? That kinda seems like a horrible thing to put in place if that is the case by your thinking.

[Advantage 2,769]

7 minutes ago, Da Trifecta said:

 

So because I use the affiliate welfare, I shouldn't get the opportunity to lineup higher? That kinda seems like a horrible thing to put in place if that is the case by your thinking.

There are many who share this belief believe it or not.  Makes no sense to me either.

 

Best players earn their spots for me..preferably active but if they contribute they deserve playing time for sure.

[omgitshim 898]

8 minutes ago, Da Trifecta said:

 

So because I use the affiliate welfare, I shouldn't get the opportunity to lineup higher? That kinda seems like a horrible thing to put in place if that is the case by your thinking.

 

I assumed he was referring to the people who just claim a free 4/5.

[Motzaburger 1,590]

25 minutes ago, Da Trifecta said:

 

So because I use the affiliate welfare, I shouldn't get the opportunity to lineup higher? That kinda seems like a horrible thing to put in place if that is the case by your thinking.

Yes. You're not fully active. Just like I said there are exceptions obviously. If you are a welfare and 1000TPE player, I wouldn't think you would be behind many if any. Just use common sense it's easy. 

[NotAVHLM-GM 1,858]

5 hours ago, Motzaburger said:

Just use common sense it's easy. 

 

Not in modern day society.

[FrostBeard 1,973]

I don't see why we should punish people because of their limited time (welfare takers) and take away ice-time. I would strongly support the idea that the best players get ice time no matter what and actives will always be better players in a long term than just welfare players. In a sense, this is a completely dead argument because the best player will be with the most TPA and those will be actives.

As this conversation started, I had to jump in.

[Beketov 8,638]

2 minutes ago, FrostBeard said:

I don't see why we should punish people because of their limited time (welfare takers) and take away ice-time. I would strongly support the idea that the best players get ice time no matter what and actives will always be better players in a long term than just welfare players. In a sense, this is a completely dead argument because the best player will be with the most TPA and those will be actives.

As this conversation started, I had to jump in.

Most TPA definitely doesn’t = best player. TPE doesn’t automatically mean success.

 

In any case that all was just one member’s opinion as well. Every GM is different and we allow them the freedom to build their lines and rosters as they choose. Obviously in the VHLM we enforced activity over TPE because it’s about bringing people in and keeping them active above all else but GMing in the VHL is different.

 

Obviously Motza also said there are exceptions. You can’t really simplify lines down that far and not have any exceptions.

[FrostBeard 1,973]

6 minutes ago, Beketov said:

Most TPA definitely doesn’t = best player. TPE doesn’t automatically mean success.

 

In any case that all was just one member’s opinion as well. Every GM is different and we allow them the freedom to build their lines and rosters as they choose. Obviously in the VHLM we enforced activity over TPE because it’s about bringing people in and keeping them active above all else but GMing in the VHL is different.

 

Obviously Motza also said there are exceptions. You can’t really simplify lines down that far and not have any exceptions.

Well, surely, I was just saying that in most cases actives will play higher roles anyway because of their ability to build players faster/better with resources they have.

 

Well, anyway, not really a thing that has to be looked at and adressed.

[DMaximus 1,045]

My thought is that the 1st pick required to secure your GM player should be your team's 1st round pick or better. That rule would be easy to follow and it prevents situations of a team needing to trade up in the first round to secure their player if they did well in the previous season. Plus it would encourage teams not to tank because it's more value to lock in a higher pick to secure your GM player. If you're angry about having to give up the 4th overall for your player while another team got to use their 10th overall for their player, then you shouldn't have sucked as much last season.

[Beketov 8,638]

21 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

If you're angry about having to give up the 4th overall for your player while another team got to use their 10th overall for their player, then you shouldn't have sucked as much last season.

You also aren’t being forced to do anything. No GM NEEDS to take their own player. If they want to that’s their choice.

 

They also don’t HAVE to put the claim in, they can just draft themselves normally without it. However that runs the risk of someone else taking them.

[TacticalHammer 95]

I have a question, and i could just be misreading this. But since any team can draft a GM player, and a GM player can't sign with his own team in FA, could a GM just never have a chance to get his own player on his team, if another team uses a higher draft pick than he has on that player?

[Will 4,600]

2 minutes ago, TacticalHammer said:

I have a question, and i could just be misreading this. But since any team can draft a GM player, and a GM player can't sign with his own team in FA, could a GM just never have a chance to get his own player on his team, if another team uses a higher draft pick than he has on that player?

 

So the GM will have the opportunity, prior to their draft year, to declare that they're claiming their player with a draft pick - specific requirements of that aren't set in stone yet but basically the GM player can still bypass the draft and go right to the GMs team if they have a sufficiently good pick. The team will lose that pick and get their GM player before the draft ever happens.

 

Otherwise they'll take their chances in the draft as a regular player and would have to trade for their player if they were drafted by someone else and wanted acquire themselves later on.

[Enorama 1,980]

On 10/10/2019 at 4:37 PM, Beketov said:

You also aren’t being forced to do anything. No GM NEEDS to take their own player. If they want to that’s their choice.

 

They also don’t HAVE to put the claim in, they can just draft themselves normally without it. However that runs the risk of someone else taking them.

 

Just thought of something. What if a team doesn't have a 1st and wants to invoke the GM player option? Is it just there first available pick regardless? Because I could see a case where it would be worth it to strategically trade away every pick but one to get assets at value while also letting yourself slide to the 4th round.

[Beketov 8,638]

10 minutes ago, Enorama said:

 

Just thought of something. What if a team doesn't have a 1st and wants to invoke the GM player option? Is it just there first available pick regardless? Because I could see a case where it would be worth it to strategically trade away every pick but one to get assets at value while also letting yourself slide to the 4th round.

Nope, has to be a first round pick. The whole point of the GM option is that they can still get their player but it’s not designed to be cheap. GM players more often than not are first round quality so we don’t want to open the option for them to pick themselves up for basically free with like a 7th round pick.

[Beaviss 4,949]

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

Nope, has to be a first round pick. The whole point of the GM option is that they can still get their player but it’s not designed to be cheap. GM players more often than not are first round quality so we don’t want to open the option for them to pick themselves up for basically free with like a 7th round pick.

 

Bring back PP2

 

Spoiler

 

[Mr_Hatter 1,603]

I know this is a kinda out there situation, but what if a new GM gets a team with no first round pick as their player goes in the draft? It's not their fault the previous GM traded away all the picks.

[Beketov 8,638]

7 minutes ago, Mr_Hatter said:

I know this is a kinda out there situation, but what if a new GM gets a team with no first round pick as their player goes in the draft? It's not their fault the previous GM traded away all the picks.

We’re discussing exactly that but my feeling is kinda “too bad”. It’s unfortunate for them sure but the point of this is to have GM’s not ALWAYS get their own player. We added the caveat as an aid but not a guarantee. If they have no picks and they want to guarantee their own player they can trade for a pick.

[Mr_Hatter 1,603]

13 minutes ago, Beketov said:

We’re discussing exactly that but my feeling is kinda “too bad”. It’s unfortunate for them sure but the point of this is to have GM’s not ALWAYS get their own player. We added the caveat as an aid but not a guarantee. If they have no picks and they want to guarantee their own player they can trade for a pick.

I think it's a really small chance of that exact scenario occurring though tbf. It would require A) no 1st round pick (very possible) and B) the GM recreating at that exact time. Maybe they just have to delay? 

 

Alternatively,  though this may be too complex, perhaps allow a GM who was unable to claim their player in the past to claim them in free agency?

[Beketov 8,638]

20 minutes ago, Mr_Hatter said:

I think it's a really small chance of that exact scenario occurring though tbf. It would require A) no 1st round pick (very possible) and B) the GM recreating at that exact time. Maybe they just have to delay? 

 

Alternatively,  though this may be too complex, perhaps allow a GM who was unable to claim their player in the past to claim them in free agency?

If they are claiming in free agency they would be doing so for free which is not fair and also not the point.

 

Like I said, it’s a caveat, not the immediate assumption. If they can’t make it happen they can try their luck about getting in the draft anyway, trade for a first round pick, or trade for the player later. We aren’t limiting the ability to get the player, we just aren’t making a pile of contingencies to make it doable in all cases either.

[animal74 1,605]

Makes sense.