|
|
Post by Druce on Aug 21, 2018 18:13:05 GMT
We currently have 4 open teams: Cavs, Bucks, Pistons, Grizz
The rules on this would be as follows: no trading between the teams, have to be in the other conference, anything fishy will result in fines and banning from GMing a 2nd team.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 18:18:18 GMT
Maybe if it all possible keep the teams in separate conferences so they play each other less
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Aug 21, 2018 18:19:46 GMT
*caveat
the Commish should extend the invitations to the GMs he wants to run the 2nd teams instead of a free-for-all to claim them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Aug 21, 2018 18:21:54 GMT
*caveat the Commish should extend the invitations to the GMs he wants to run the 2nd teams instead of a free-for-all to claim them. I like this idea |
|
ahebrewtoo
New Member
Posts: 796
Likes: 225
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by ahebrewtoo on Aug 21, 2018 18:25:55 GMT
*caveat the Commish should extend the invitations to the GMs he wants to run the 2nd teams instead of a free-for-all to claim them. I fully endorse this idea. I am not willing to take a second team. |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Aug 21, 2018 18:26:31 GMT
*caveat the Commish should extend the invitations to the GMs he wants to run the 2nd teams instead of a free-for-all to claim them. I like this idea suggested in Shout a couple additional things I think could be helpful: 1. A team with a GM cannot trade with both double-GM'd teams in the same season 2. If someone wants to GM a second team, they can apply and it can be voted on (or commish selected IMO) |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 18:29:13 GMT
i would unquit if these rules were put in place
and if taco apologizes, obviously
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Aug 21, 2018 18:34:32 GMT
i would unquit if these rules were put in place and if taco apologizes, obviously In which case we only have three teams in need of a GM. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Aug 21, 2018 18:49:30 GMT
voted no
I understand this entails more work for the Commish
I also was freely in favor of this in 4.0, but that was a dying league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Aug 21, 2018 18:49:44 GMT
i would appreciate if the people who voted no explained why.
|
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Aug 21, 2018 18:51:00 GMT
voted no I understand this entails more work for the Commish I also was freely in favor of this in 4.0, but that was a dying league. Keep these computeams afloat until we find new GMs, if ever. Then let the guys double-GMing pick the team they want to keep and let the other one go. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Aug 21, 2018 18:53:08 GMT
i would appreciate if the people who voted no explained why. I just personally dont like the idea of a GM having access to 2 teams I also dont think its a bad thing to have a couple teams that arent being run by anyone. however, I do think we should have some sort of committee or group that can help make decisions for the computeams. Lastly, I think it would be fun to let the software run one of the teams. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Aug 21, 2018 18:56:37 GMT
i would appreciate if the people who voted no explained why. I just personally dont like the idea of a GM having access to 2 teams I also dont think its a bad thing to have a couple teams that arent being run by anyone. however, I do think we should have some sort of committee or group that can help make decisions for the computeams. Lastly, I think it would be fun to let the software run one of the teams. software can't make bids or trades. it can make picks but that would mean the commish would have to have the draft up to date and be at the software whenever we needed a compu team to pick. it can make DCs that don't necessarily obey our rules but it wouldn't be hard for us to check them since we're checking everyone's on day 1 now anyway |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Aug 21, 2018 18:58:17 GMT
jhb suggested in Shout a couple additional things I think could be helpful: 1. A team with a GM cannot trade with both double-GM'd teams in the same season 2. If someone wants to GM a second team, they can apply and it can be voted on (or commish selected IMO) I think number one is crucial to this working so someone can't take a loss on one trade and a win on another as a workaround to using one team to help prop up the other. |
|
|
|
Post by eric on Aug 21, 2018 19:00:36 GMT
i voted no
we don't trust GMs to run one team, that's why we have vetoes in the first place, running two would make it that much worse.
this ayton trade is a perfect example. a vocal minority lost their stuff when there was absolutely no reason to suspect the "bucks GM" of favoring any other team. when people justifiably have that suspicion the situation gets worse, not better.
i don't see this solving anything beyond making odin happy and i see it causing more problems.
i voted no
|
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Aug 21, 2018 19:10:35 GMT
i voted no we don't trust GMs to run one team, that's why we have vetoes in the first place, running two would make it that much worse. this ayton trade is a perfect example. a vocal minority lost their stuff when there was absolutely no reason to suspect the "bucks GM" of favoring any other team. when people justifiably have that suspicion the situation gets worse, not better. i don't see this solving anything beyond making odin happy and i see it causing more problems. i voted no I echo alot of erics thoughts here just think that it could cause alot more problems that its solving. I think it could be even more simple to get a short list of GMs that could make decisions or give opinions on a GM-less teams moves. Whether that be drafting or trades. the Ayton situation is a good example. Before posting this trade, Druce lets the 3-4 GMs debate the trade, if its agreed its a good trade then it goes through. |
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Aug 21, 2018 19:12:31 GMT
i voted no we don't trust GMs to run one team, that's why we have vetoes in the first place, running two would make it that much worse. this ayton trade is a perfect example. a vocal minority lost their stuff when there was absolutely no reason to suspect the "bucks GM" of favoring any other team. when people justifiably have that suspicion the situation gets worse, not better. i don't see this solving anything beyond making odin happy and i see it causing more problems. i voted no I echo alot of erics thoughts here just think that it could cause alot more problems that its solving. I think it could be even more simple to get a short list of GMs that could make decisions or give opinions on a GM-less teams moves. Whether that be drafting or trades. the Ayton situation is a good example. Before posting this trade, Druce lets the 3-4 GMs debate the trade, if its agreed its a good trade then it goes through.Then what happens if one of those GMs wants him/someone else involved? |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Aug 21, 2018 19:17:39 GMT
I echo alot of erics thoughts here just think that it could cause alot more problems that its solving. I think it could be even more simple to get a short list of GMs that could make decisions or give opinions on a GM-less teams moves. Whether that be drafting or trades. the Ayton situation is a good example. Before posting this trade, Druce lets the 3-4 GMs debate the trade, if its agreed its a good trade then it goes through.Then what happens if one of those GMs wants him/someone else involved? this i why you have a panel of multiple people. also, you would know if that person is involved since you would be the one negotiating with him. |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Aug 21, 2018 19:22:21 GMT
i voted no we don't trust GMs to run one team, that's why we have vetoes in the first place, running two would make it that much worse. this ayton trade is a perfect example. a vocal minority lost their stuff when there was absolutely no reason to suspect the "bucks GM" of favoring any other team. when people justifiably have that suspicion the situation gets worse, not better. i don't see this solving anything beyond making odin happy and i see it causing more problems. i voted no I echo alot of erics thoughts here just think that it could cause alot more problems that its solving. I think it could be even more simple to get a short list of GMs that could make decisions or give opinions on a GM-less teams moves. Whether that be drafting or trades. the Ayton situation is a good example. Before posting this trade, Druce lets the 3-4 GMs debate the trade, if its agreed its a good trade then it goes through. So your solution is that instead of having 3-4 select GM's with integrity to have a second team where they are a stakeholder and invested in making good decisions for that team you would rather have 3-4 GM's on a committee where they are not stakeholders and will still be motivated by the desire to help only their original team while they make decisions for those same 3-4 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by jhb on Aug 21, 2018 19:26:13 GMT
And doing that will create less controversy? That's what you're telling me.
|
|
fason
New Member
Posts: 743
Likes: 291
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by fason on Aug 21, 2018 19:27:45 GMT
To avoid any potential nonsense or drama, I vote for contraction. Then we figure out what to do with players on GM-less teams, how to rearrange teams so schedules are somewhat fair and then what to do if somebody new wants to take a team.
|
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Aug 21, 2018 19:28:41 GMT
Voted yes, takes the interest of any team away from the commish.
Commish has more insight into players than GMs do, for all we know the Bucks trade is a no brainer to Druce based on player builds, something that shouldn't come into play when trading.
Having a GM take a 2nd team until a new GM is found is the best way to go. Prevents players/teams from wasting away, doesn't create more work for the commish or give him an individual team interest and keeps the GM-less teams active in all facets of the league.
Rules would obv. need to be put in place but I think it's a better solution than others being brought to the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Aug 21, 2018 19:30:54 GMT
To avoid any potential nonsense or drama, I vote for contraction. Then we figure out what to do with players on GM-less teams, how to rearrange teams so schedules are somewhat fair and then what to do if somebody new wants to take a team. with all compu players on the other teams? |
|
fason
New Member
Posts: 743
Likes: 291
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by fason on Aug 21, 2018 19:57:53 GMT
To avoid any potential nonsense or drama, I vote for contraction. Then we figure out what to do with players on GM-less teams, how to rearrange teams so schedules are somewhat fair and then what to do if somebody new wants to take a team. with all compu players on the other teams? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by TimPig on Aug 21, 2018 20:52:49 GMT
with all compu players on the other teams? Yes Hockey style expansion draft. Each team can protect X number of players (7?) and let the new GM pick from the unprotected guys, plus they'll get the lottery pick they'll inevitably be guaranteed that year. |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Aug 21, 2018 21:31:57 GMT
with all compu players on the other teams? Yes fan of this, I would vote yes |
|
|
|
Post by Majic on Aug 21, 2018 21:34:34 GMT
Voted yes, takes the interest of any team away from the commish. Commish has more insight into players than GMs do, for all we know the Bucks trade is a no brainer to Druce based on player builds, something that shouldn't come into play when trading. Having a GM take a 2nd team until a new GM is found is the best way to go. Prevents players/teams from wasting away, doesn't create more work for the commish or give him an individual team interest and keeps the GM-less teams active in all facets of the league. Rules would obv. need to be put in place but I think it's a better solution than others being brought to the table. not sure I see why its a bad thing that the Commish makes a trade when he knows players builds. It likely means hes putting the compu-team in a better position long term. in regards to the bolded part, I think its highly likely that the league will continue to have 1-2 GM-less teams, at least. We have struggled to get and keep a full league of GM's. I would much rather come up with a better strategy, much like the one Fason suggested, than to always rely on a GMs having 2 teams. |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Aug 21, 2018 21:43:31 GMT
Voted yes, takes the interest of any team away from the commish. Commish has more insight into players than GMs do, for all we know the Bucks trade is a no brainer to Druce based on player builds, something that shouldn't come into play when trading. Having a GM take a 2nd team until a new GM is found is the best way to go. Prevents players/teams from wasting away, doesn't create more work for the commish or give him an individual team interest and keeps the GM-less teams active in all facets of the league. Rules would obv. need to be put in place but I think it's a better solution than others being brought to the table. not sure I see why its a bad thing that the Commish makes a trade when he knows players builds. It likely means hes putting the compu-team in a better position long term. in regards to the bolded part, I think its highly likely that the league will continue to have 1-2 GM-less teams, at least. We have struggled to get and keep a full league of GM's. I would much rather come up with a better strategy, much like the one Fason suggested, than to always rely on a GMs having 2 teams. Fair enough, but we need some sort of solution that removes the commish from complete control imo |
|
ahebrewtoo
New Member
Posts: 796
Likes: 225
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by ahebrewtoo on Aug 21, 2018 21:45:30 GMT
Fasons contraction suggestion is such a blatant troll and yet Majic supports it.
I’m just. I don’t. Whatever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
fason
New Member
Posts: 743
Likes: 291
Joined: February 2018
|
Post by fason on Aug 21, 2018 21:46:56 GMT
Hockey style expansion draft. Each team can protect X number of players (7?) and let the new GM pick from the unprotected guys, plus they'll get the lottery pick they'll inevitably be guaranteed that year. Figuring out what to do with the current players on computeams would be a bigger deal, like whether there is a contraction draft or if they would all become FAs. |
|
