Beketov

Unlinking GM Players and Removing Project Player 2

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.