General Managers and their Player

[Molholt 2,185]

I want to pose a question and some thoughts, and I want to see what reasons you guys can think of that I've missed that could be an issue.

 

I got my sim league start in a baseball league where you could have multiple players. Those players could go to any teams in the league, the only rule was you couldn't have more than half of them on one team. You could have at a max, 4 players (2 pitchers, 2 hitters), and so only 2 of them could be on one team at a time. I was also a general manager in this league.

 

In the VHL, of course we only have one player. We also have a rule that a GM has to have his player on his team. This is the rule I want to discuss. To me, I have never fully understood this because I was raised (lol) differently. 

 

A normal VHL player will often change teams multiple times in the VHL. Of course some will remain loyal, etc. However, with how quickly the tides can change on who is contending, often times a player will leave a team going into a rebuild and go to a contender, particularly as his career winds down. There seems to be a pretty consistent cycle of up and down for the teams, and I would say it is definitely less than a full career. A GM's player has to ride out that whole 8 years with the same team though, even if they are going to be horrible or going into a rebuild, but why?

 

Why can a GM not exist separately from his player? Is it because we don't trust them? I was explaining to Victor that in that baseball league, I managed 4 players of my own and was also a general manager. All of my players earned max points every season and they all updated, I had two players on my own team and two on a team in the other division. I actually wound up in the finals against the team with my players on it. As a GM I tried my best to win that series, but I ended up losing, my players on the other team got a win, but my team didn't. However, it isn't like I threw that series. My duty was still as a GM (and I got them to the finals) and I tried to win it. I ended up winning the next year anyway. 

 

The point, is I did my job to the best of my abilities as a GM and I did the best for all four of my players. I was never sabotaging anything or trying to find a loophole to benefit anything. Everyone in the league was like that, you want to do the best for all of your players, and if you're a GM you want to do the best as a GM too. 

 

The main two issues I have thought about are locker rooms and updating. I posed a question to Victor. Let's say I was the GM of Quebec. My player Jarkko Olsen goes to free agency this season, and I decide to sign him to a contender, so I sign with Toronto. If I'm doing my best to turn Quebec around (or compete if they are a competitive team in the example), I'm updating my player and earning TPE regularly, and I forego access to my player's locker room (Toronto), what could be considered foul play?

 

I'm not the GM of Toronto, so I can't control how they utilize my player, but I can earn points and update my player to make my player the best he can be. I can want to win with Olsen. I can also do the best GMing job possible for Quebec and try to be winning there as well. 

 

I just think it would make GMing a better experience for some people, as they wouldn't feel like they were making their player go through some bad seasons if they didn't want to, or wouldn't have to put their player through a rebuild, etc. It would also make the drafts more interesting, if it was decided to let the GMs players go into the draft instead of going directly to the team. (Perhaps this could be an option, but you could also decide to take your player for the same compensation as is in place now?) To me, GMs and Players are separate, and at this point in the VHL I don't see a huge reason to keep them tethered together. 

 

The reason for this thread is I know I'm probably missing something or things. What are they? What are the issues with this I'm not seeing? Why couldn't this work apart from this is the way it has always been? 

[Mike 708]

Those leagues have 30 teams not 8.

[Molholt 2,185]

We had 8 teams but ok.

It was a player sim league just like this, you think we had 30 teams worth of players? Lol

Also this is about the VHL not that league, so maybe try answering those questions instead?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Molholt

[Devise 4,475]

I think your ideas are sound Molholt and to be completely honest I don't think many people would exploit it if they were able to GM a team and have their player on another.

 

But to me it's about a principle. You don't structure the rules in a way that a conflict of interest could potentially exist or come up. Even if you hope and assume that the majority of the league won't abuse it, the fact that it COULD happen under that rule set when in reality it isn't that big of a deal to have a GM player be on the GM team. Specifically since VHL GM's with the exception of a few swap out at a decent enough time frame as it is. They create their players to fit in with the rebuild, and fit in with the core of their teams in most cases.

 

Keep in mind we aren't in a time were a team competes for a few seasons and then rebuilds either. Cologne was a re-tooling/trying to compete team every since they joined the league. Quebec as well. Both teams felt the blows of expansion depth but slowly became playoff teams and only now recently have rebuilt. That is 8 seasons. New York before Chri's recent rebuilt went 11 seasons of playoff action. Davos has been a top team for like 3-4 seasons now. Teams don't cycle as often in the VHL as they used to due to the sheer number of quality players we have. Literally a GM has to suffer one maybe two bad seasons with a team now, if that. Even Calgary/Helsinki are coming out of rebuild with somewhat competitive teams right now, and aren't just pushovers. 

[Molholt 2,185]

I agree, if there is a way for them to exploit then why bother. That's what I'm asking though, what is the way they COULD that I'm missing? Because all I see is maybe a locker room issue or purposefully not updating? Which you could take away LR access and monitor updates, but people are already not updating to benefit them in other ways like salary caps, etc.

[Devise 4,475]

I agree, if there is a way for them to exploit then why bother. That's what I'm asking though, what is the way they COULD that I'm missing? Because all I see is maybe a locker room issue or purposefully not updating? Which you could take away LR access and monitor updates, but people are already not updating to benefit them in other ways like salary caps, etc.

 

We already grill some GM's regarding "fair trades." Or understanding value. A GM could make a bad deal and then try to argue they thought they were making a good deal, or that it was the right move for their team. That move could of course benefit the team their player is on, or vice versa. A GM could trade his player for high value, then instantly retire him or go inactive screwing with the team he traded his player to and manipulating the rule in their favour.

 

In heads up match up as well there is also line combinations that could be tampered with that could manipulate the match up. Ultimately the GM could work with another GM to stack a roster even if a player isn't interested. Like say signing free agents and trading them only to the team his player is on for a chance to win, regardless of other offers on the table. Honestly there is probably even more that I'm not thinking of at the moment. There is tons of room for abuse. While you certainly could implement rules and asterix and hire someone to monitor and doll out punishment. But that is a ton of extra work to manage a situation that we already have managed right now. 

Edited May 20, 2014 by Devise22

[Seth 92]

Honestly, my philosophy with sim-leagues, and their rules, has remained unchanged. If the situation or rule is not broken, there is no need to fix it. I thoroughly believe the system we currently have enabled is flourishing, and there is a more of a risk than a reward to alter it.

[Molholt 2,185]

We already grill some GM's regarding "fair trades." Or understanding value. A GM could make a bad deal and then try to argue they thought they were making a good deal, or that it was the right move for their team. That move could of course benefit the team their player is on, or vice versa. A GM could trade his player for high value, then instantly retire him or go inactive screwing with the team he traded his player to and manipulating the rule in their favour.

 

In heads up match up as well there is also line combinations that could be tampered with that could manipulate the match up. Ultimately the GM could work with another GM to stack a roster even if a player isn't interested. Like say signing free agents and trading them only to the team his player is on for a chance to win, regardless of other offers on the table. Honestly there is probably even more that I'm not thinking of at the moment. There is tons of room for abuse. While you certainly could implement rules and asterix and hire someone to monitor and doll out punishment. But that is a ton of extra work to manage a situation that we already have managed right now. 

 

Good points.

 

Towards the trading of their player, we used to require commissioner approval on any trade involving your own player. Most of the time there weren't trades, they'd just go to free agency, etc. We also didn't allow retirement while in a contract - so you couldn't retire like that to screw over a team because they knew the length of the contract going in, and they were guaranteed at least that long.

 

The sign and trade aspect seems unlikely, but I suppose it could happen. That would just be a shady person that should've never been a GM though lol. But, who knows what people will do until they have a chance to do it.

 

To be fair - most of those things could be done with anyone, any GM could do this to benefit their friend or friend's player, but I agree there is more incentive to do it when your own player is involved.

 

I think you've brought up enough stuff to warrant not legitimately pushing for this, which was the point of it. All I could think of was two things, and Victor told me to post about it so that everyone else could nitpick it to death Good work

Edited May 20, 2014 by Molholt

[Kesler 1,514]

Nah.

[Jericho 917]

Those leagues have 30 teams not 8.

 

We have 10 silly!

 

But yeah, basically what Devise said.

[d3vilsfire 132]

I totally agree with what you said Molholt.. I just had a discussion with Victor, Frank, and Higgins about this exact something and what you said perfectly matches up with my thinking.

 

Honestly, my philosophy with sim-leagues, and their rules, has remained unchanged. If the situation or rule is not broken, there is no need to fix it. I thoroughly believe the system we currently have enabled is flourishing, and there is a more of a risk than a reward to alter it.

 

I disagree. I think there is always room for improvements or to try new things. If it doesn't work you can go back. Also how do you know its not broken or bound to break?

[sterling 1,997]

I totally agree with what you said Molholt.. I just had a discussion with Victor, Frank, and Higgins about this exact something and what you said perfectly matches up with my thinking.

I disagree. I think there is always room for improvements or to try new things. If it doesn't work you can go back. Also how do you know its not broken or bound to break?

7 years plus is a good indication. We change things here all the time, but I don't think such a big change at this point would be acceptable