Something That Bothers Me

[Gustav 6,460]

I want to say right at the top of this one that what I'm about to write here might seem like I'm calling people out. I'm not--I'm calling out a situation which enables people to do things a certain way. In fact, I actually really like the people who are involved with this, so I'm hoping this is in no way seen as a personal shot.

 

Right up through S75, GMs were allowed to give up a first-round pick to select their own player. Eventually, this rule got yeeted when every GM went and made their first-round picks as late as possible, usually landing a player who belonged in the early first round at 11 or 12 (and later on, 15 or 16). I wasn't fully in support of removing it, but wasn't super against seeing it get removed as it was clear that the intent of the rule was being played with in a way that wasn't exactly what the league wanted or needed. Some GMs, given the timing of the rule change, were--understandably--upset that it happened, especially if they weren't allowed to do the same for their own players after watching three GM players (Taro included) go in the last draft.

 

And that is what it is. After a bit of looking into the specifics (it was made clear that attempts to dodge the rule by manipulating one's own draft stock or whatever else wouldn't be tolerated), eventually it was accepted by all, for better or for worse, and we moved on from it. The thing is...since that happened, we've seen one GM not recreate--and other GMs have strongly hinted that they would do the same, because not being able to select one's own player is seen as hurting one's own team. And that's not even necessarily incorrect. If you're not guaranteed to have your own player, then sure, you might end up being an asset for a rival. I wouldn't be surprised if a few seasons from now we had multiple GMs without players, because I've seen enough talk to know that more GMs plan to do this than just one who happens to be the first.

 

If you feel strongly enough that that's hurting your team enough that you shouldn't have a player, that's your opinion. I'm not even disagreeing from a purely objective standpoint. But just like picking your own player as late as possible is against the intent of the rule, isn't not having a player in the first place against the intent of the lack of a rule? It bothers me more that that's even seen as an option than that the previous rule was being bent a little. It really, really, needs to not be an option.

 

GMs should be required to always have a player. And attempting to get that player on your own team by tanking your own stock, threatening to retire early or stop earning, or whatever else should be expressly prohibited. A GM is someone who is supposed to be a meaningful contributor to the entire league including their team, not just someone who shuffles around players on a team and does nothing else. Of course, I'm not trying to say that this is happening in any of the real situations I'm hinting at, but in theory a GM without a player could get by as someone entirely inactive who checks in every once in a while to look at the roster. Having a player, generating content, and contributing to the entire community is something that this league needs and deserves from its GMs. Someone who runs a team needs to be active, and purposely reducing one's own activity to avoid being a part of any other team is something that the rules need to stand against.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

100% agreement.

 

I know in the past (and I mean WAY long ago) it was 100%required to have a player in order to hold a GM position. Granted, this was when they were automatically tethered to their team, but I dont see why that requirement wouldnt still be in place.

[DMaximus 1,046]

Being a GM is a privilege and a role that a ton of members in the community want. If you're not an exemplary member who positively contributes to the community, then you shouldn't be a GM. Having an active player is the bare minimum for being a contributing member of this community. If you can't meet that bar, then you most certainly shouldn't be a GM. If you threaten to retire your player or stop updating your player because you don't like something about your player's situation, then you aren't positively contributing to the community and you shouldn't be a GM. 

[Beketov 9,090]

I was really expecting the ending of this to be “how dare the league change the rule in this way, it’s so unreasonable” and I’m glad that I was completely wrong.

 

To me it’s simple, a GM player is likely to be a very good player. Why should you get that player, that clearly as a GM you are depending on, for free or for VASTLY lower than they are worth? Any other player in the draft you can’t do that with so why should it be possible with your own? If you want them so bad then trade up and get them, or trade for them after the draft, nothing stopping you.

 

I didn’t mind adding the first round pick rule (though I didn’t want it) when the league had 8 teams but at double that it’s ridiculous. Just to add the perspective, when the rule was introduced pick 16 would have been the very end of the second round, is that remotely a reasonable spot to get a super active 300+ TPE player that’s guaranteed to stick around as long as you need them and do whatever is best for the team instead of themselves? Obviously not so the fact that’s in the first round now doesn’t change anything.

 

/rant

 

I’m not going to give an opinion on whether GM’s MUST have a player but I will say that holding out on recreating isn’t going to sway the league’s hand any.

[Kachur 112]

9 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

GMs should be required to always have a player. And attempting to get that player on your own team by tanking your own stock, threatening to retire early or stop earning, or whatever else should be expressly prohibited. A GM is someone who is supposed to be a meaningful contributor to the entire league including their team, not just someone who shuffles around players on a team and does nothing else. Of course, I'm not trying to say that this is happening in any of the real situations I'm hinting at, but in theory a GM without a player could get by as someone entirely inactive who checks in every once in a while to look at the roster. Having a player, generating content, and contributing to the entire community is something that this league needs and deserves from its GMs. Someone who runs a team needs to be active, and purposely reducing one's own activity to avoid being a part of any other team is something that the rules need to stand against.

[bigAL 2,176]

Lmao seriously? Are people getting that petty? Remember - it’s just a friggin game. The fact that your player goes and makes another persons team better is a shitty perspective to take. Be happy with the 1OA pick, and be happy when your team is ass and gets to draft someone else’s GM player. Going covert subversive and making your player bad to sabotage another team suuuuucks. 
 

Also, GMs need to show prospective players that they actually know how to play the game. People don’t go to Vancouver because Beav gives them free egg salad sammies (I would), they go to learn how to build the next HHH. Dude has a track record of good teams and players and that matters. To put that whole player development piece of your portfolio in the garbage is garbage. 
 

wow that might’ve been one of my most aggressive rants. Finish your coffee then write, kids. 

[Jubis 1,350]

I was one of the people most against the rule change and have not hid that fact. This is mostly because it was unexpected and put a wrinkle in my plans. I may have gone overboard with showing my displeasure of such a change.  I still have a player in the league tho and will be re-creating, maybe even a draft class early in s77. My actual next re-create is supposed to be in s78 draft.  I would never not have a player .  This is at the end of the day is all for fun and creating a player is an extremely fun experience. I will continue to try and lead by example and do the right thing.  I also would never retire on a fellow GM or do anything crazy like that.

 

Good writeup

@GustavMattias got mad respect for you

Edited January 30, 2021 by Jubis

[Kachur 112]

1 hour ago, bigAL said:

Lmao seriously? Are people getting that petty? Remember - it’s just a friggin game. The fact that your player goes and makes another persons team better is a shitty perspective to take. Be happy with the 1OA pick, and be happy when your team is ass and gets to draft someone else’s GM player. Going covert subversive and making your player bad to sabotage another team suuuuucks. 
 

Also, GMs need to show prospective players that they actually know how to play the game. People don’t go to Vancouver because Beav gives them free egg salad sammies (I would), they go to learn how to build the next HHH. Dude has a track record of good teams and players and that matters. To put that whole player development piece of your portfolio in the garbage is garbage. 
 

wow that might’ve been one of my most aggressive rants. Finish your coffee then write, kids. 

I like this. This...all of this

[eaglesfan036 4,604]

I don't see what's so confusing about this

 

If every team gets their GM player free of charge that's the most equal and easy way to do it

[fishy 1,757]

Hi Gus, this is going to be a mix of a review and actual feedback, so read at ur own risk.

 

First, I just wanna say that I really appreciate the fact that you write long articles. That sounds kind of odd, but really, I think you were right when you said that longer articles are generally higher quality. Your written contributions to the league, whether for TPE or not, stand out to me as exceptional; I feel like you genuinely have something to say in your articles, and I want to say thank you for that.

 

Second, I'm glad you touched on this topic because it's been bothering me a bit too. Not a lot, and not something that I spend a lot of energy on, but I do agree that it feels... petty. While I was writing my academic paper on the VHL, I really started questioning why people were in this league, especially if some folks were going to spend so much time and energy being upset about the things that happened here!! I have my own thoughts that aren't well-tuned that I don't think I should probably share in this comment. I do think, though, that it's really difficult to balance "your feelings are valid, respond how you see best fit" and "this is a sim league, please have a reality check." Your article nailed that division by pointing out that, yeah, it's frustrating, but also explaining how a GM's decision to not have a player does speak to their team. (This is starting to feel like a Canvas discussion post, so I'll wrap it up).

 

----

 

Overall, I'm going to give this article a 10/10. You've done a great job of validating people's concerns, saving your and other folks' face by minimizing potentially "attack-ish" phrasing, and very clearly explained, with good reason, what it is that bothers you and why. I also think that you've done a great job of saying, "I agree with a thing that was done, and I think it's best for the league." It's difficult to write a good article saying nice things. Is that dumb? maybe. But that's just the way it is. Great job, and thanks for another 10/10 contribution!

[Banackock 8,106]

Bring back GM player PH YA BABY

[tcookie 927]

16 hours ago, GustavMattias said:

GMs should be required to always have a player. And attempting to get that player on your own team by tanking your own stock, threatening to retire early or stop earning, or whatever else should be expressly prohibited. A GM is someone who is supposed to be a meaningful contributor to the entire league including their team, not just someone who shuffles around players on a team and does nothing else. Of course, I'm not trying to say that this is happening in any of the real situations I'm hinting at, but in theory a GM without a player could get by as someone entirely inactive who checks in every once in a while to look at the roster. Having a player, generating content, and contributing to the entire community is something that this league needs and deserves from its GMs. Someone who runs a team needs to be active, and purposely reducing one's own activity to avoid being a part of any other team is something that the rules need to stand against.

 

all of this 100%

[Beketov 9,090]

4 hours ago, WentzKneeFan036 said:

I don't see what's so confusing about this

 

If every team gets their GM player free of charge that's the most equal and easy way to do it

Easy until GM changes happen and then it gets super messy. Plus GM’s don’t always want to be permanently locked to their team. Having GM just be a job like any other, unrelated to player, is far cleaner and easier.